Brooks v. Celeste’s Empirical Analysis
16 F.3d 104 · 1994
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Estelle v. Gamble · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co. · Mayers v. United States · Bryson Properties, XVIII v. Travelers Insurance Co.
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“are insufficient to identify the plaintiffs who join Calvin Brooks in this appeal. Because the notice neither identifies any other plaintiffs nor refers to the fact that plaintiffs were certified as a class in the district court, defendants argue that plaintiffs have failed to comply with Fed.R.App.P. 3(c), thereby creating a jurisdictional bar to any appeal except by Brooks. Plaintiffs argue that because this is a class action they are relieved of the requirement to specifically name all plaintiffs who wish to appeal. They contend that use of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brooks v. Celeste“for the appellants must appear in the notice of appeal, we believe that the D.C. Circuit has formulated the best approach to achieve this objective simply and effectively. We hereby adopt that approach. Requiring some sort of class designator in addition to the name of a class representative comports with the specificity requirement of Torres and recognizes the practical problems of listing all plaintiffs in very large, or even open-ended, classes. 43 Plaintiffs' first notice of appeal referred only to”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brooks v. Celeste“that the entire class appealed the judgment. 38 Al-Jundi, 885 F.2d at 1061 n. 1 (citations omitted). But requiring parties to refer back to the complaint does not comport with the requirement that the notice of appeal stand on its own two feet. Requiring parties to look back to the complaint would obviate the rule established in Torres. 39 The Rendon court also disposed of the sufficiency issue in a footnote, holding: 40 The plaintiffs' notice of appeal designated”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brooks v. Celeste
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.