Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 242 F.3d 290 - Aj Bertulli

Aj Bertulli’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

60
cited by 60 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
May 2023
most recently cited

6 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2023 · most notably 133 S. Ct. 1426 - Comcast Corp. v. Behrend (2013), Visa Check/mastermoney Antitrust Litigation v. Usa

6 district · 3 state decisions

380200020102020decided

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 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Warth v. Seldin · Allen v. Wright · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · Jenkins v. Raymark Industries, 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[a]lthough calculating damages will require some individualized determinations, it appears that virtually every issue prior to damages is a common issue”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “without any requirement of a showing of further injury.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “their pilots' association and airline claiming injury suffered as a result of seniority lost when the pilots’ association and airline changed the seniority rankings of their pilots.” The court in Bertulli noted that damages would be nominal for most class members. Id. at 299 . Even successful class members would recover $29,000 at most. Id. The court consequently found that the class action qualified as a negative value suit and concluded that the plaintiffs had met the superiority requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). See id. (”
    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.