Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 229 F.3d 1345 - Stone Container Corporation Stone Container International Stone Container Savannah River Pulp Paper v. United States

Stone Container Corporation Stone Container International Stone Container Savannah River Pulp Paper v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

229 F.3d 1345 · 2000

Citation profile

81
cited by 81 later decisions
2
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (2010), Festo Corporation v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co Ltd Smc Corporation Smc Pneumatics Inc (2000)

25 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

540200020102020decided

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 Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs · United States v. Kubrick · American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah · Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co. · Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States

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

  1. ““under present Rule 23, ... the filing of a timely class action complaint commences the action for all members of the class as subsequently determined.” American Pipe & Constr. Co., Inc. v. U.S., 414 U.S. 538, 550 , 94 S.Ct. 756 , 38 L.Ed.2d 713 (1974). The Court then held that the class action suspended the statute of limitations for all asserted class members because the contrary approach “would frustrate the principal function of a class suit” by forcing putative class members to file suit to protect their rights. Id. at 551 , 94 S.Ct. 756 . Similarly, in Crown, Cork & Seal Co., Inc. v. Parker, 462, U.S. 345, 351, 103 S.Ct. 2392 , 76 L.Ed.2d 628 (1983), the Court recognized that unless the statute of limitations were tolled by the filing of a class action, “the result would be a needless multiplicity of actions” — precisely the situation that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and the tolling rule of American Pipe were designed to avoid.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “willing to assume, favorably to the taxpayers but only for argument's sake, that a tax refund suit and a private party suit for restitution are sufficiently similar to warrant asking Irwin's negatively phrased question: Is there good reason to believe that Congress did not want the equitable tolling doctrine to apply?”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Once the statute of limitations has been tolled, it remains tolled for all members of the putative class until class certification is denied. At that point, class members may choose to file their own suits or to intervene as plaintiffs in the pending action.”
    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.