Strong v. Bellsouth Telecommunications Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
137 F.3d 844 · 1998
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Staton v. Boeing Co. (2003), Giles v. General Electric Co. (2001)
32 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. · Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert · Evans v. Jeff D. Ex Rel. Johnson · General Motors Corporation Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation 94-1064 94-1194 94-1195 94-1198 94-1202 94-1203 94-1207 94-1208 94-1219
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the District Court abdicated its responsibility to assess the reasonableness of attorneys' fees proposed under a settlement of a class action, and its approval of the settlement must be reversed on this ground alone”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Counsel’s position underestimates, however, the scope of the court’s duty under Rule 23 to protect absent class members and to police class action proceedings. This duty is not limited to a review of the substantive claims included in the agreement. Instead, the “duty to investigate the provisions of the suggested settlement includes the obligation to explore the manner in which fees of class counsel are to be paid and the dollar amount for such services.” Foster v. Boise-Cascade, Inc., 420 F.Supp. 674, 680 (S.D.Tex.1976), aff'd, 577 F.2d 335 (5th Cir.1978). To fully discharge its duty to review and approve class action settlement agreements, a district court must assess the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees. See Piambino v. Bailey, 610 F.2d 1306, 1328 (5th Cir.1980). “The purpose of this salutary requirement is to protect the nonparty members of the class from unjust or unfair settlements affecting their rights” as well as to minimize conflicts that “may arise between the attorney and the class, between the named plaintiffs and the absentees, and between various subclasses.” Id. at 1327-28 . Moreover, the court’s examination of attorneys’ fees guards against the public perception that attorneys exploit the class action device to obtain large fees at the expense of the class.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To be enforceable, the Agreement require[s] the final approval of each federal court, pursuant to [Rule] 23(e). Any modification to the Agreement, whether by a party or a court, would render the Agreement void.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.