Crecensio Acuna’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 146 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably Gasch Zg v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, 171 Ohio App. 3d 633 - Simeone v. Girard City Board of Education (2007)
1 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 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 National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc. · Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n · Willy v. Coastal Corp. · Frank Landry v. Air Line Pilots Association International Afl-Cio, Taca Airlines, S.A. And Charles J. Huttinger · Federal Deposit Insurance v. Conner
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 146 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[TJhere are approximately one thousand six hundred plaintiffs suing over one hundred defendants for a range of injuries occurring over a span of up to forty years. Neither the defendants nor the court was on notice from plaintiffs’ pleadings as to how many instances of which diseases were being claimed as injuries or which facilities were alleged to have caused those injuries. It was within the court’s discretion to take steps to manage the complex and potentially very burdensome discovery that the cases would require. The scheduling orders issued below essentially required that information which plaintiffs should have had before filing their claims pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 11(b)(3). Each plaintiff should have had at least some information regarding the nature of his injuries, the circumstances under which he could have been exposed to harmful substances, and the basis for believing that the named defendants were responsible for his injuries. The affidavits supplied by plaintiffs did not provide this information.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“pre-discovery scheduling orders that required plaintiffs to establish certain elements of their claims through expert affidavits. Those affidavits had to specify, for each plaintiff, the injuries or illnesses suffered by the plaintiff that were caused by the alleged uranium exposure, the materials or substances causing the injury and the facility thought to be their source, the dates or circumstances and means of exposure to the injurious materials, and the scientific and medical bases for the expert’s opinions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“contingent on whether the occurrence took place in a state which regulates its own uranium industry under NRC guidelines, or whether the facility is covered under the separate indemnification portions of the [PAA].”
1 later decision 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.