Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 162 FRD 559 - In re Potash Antitrust Litigation

In re Potash Antitrust Litigation’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
April 2015
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 2015

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

30199520002010decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 636

Relies on James Julian, Inc. v. Raytheon Co. · 406 F. Supp. 435 - Ramsey v. Arata · Kleiner v. First National Bank · Palumbo v. Tele-Communications, Inc.

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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[W]e would merely note that this case has been pending for a sufficient period to permit any interested member of the certified class to have conducted its own factual investigation, and that, as a member of the certified class, [the cooperative] has the opportunity of conferring with class counsel so as to ascertain their diligence, competence and wherewithal to press the class claims against these Defendants. If [the cooperative] concludes, after electing to remain in the class, that its interests would be better served through an appearance by its own counsel or, if [the cooperative] should wish to participate through intervention, then the procedures of Rule 23(c)(2) will continue to be readily accessible for those purposes .... At this juncture, we find [the cooperative's] interest in making an appearance to be premature, and to potentiate toward an unfairness to the class and to the conduct of this action through unnecessary delay, complication and expense to all concerned.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.