In the Matter of Mexico Money Transfer Litigation’s Empirical Analysis
267 F.3d 743 · 2001
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (2002), Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc. (2011)
21 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1965 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
Relies on Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts · 46 Cal. 3d 287 - Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies · Szabo v. Bridgeport Machines, 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But since when is failure to disclose the precise difference between wholesale and retail prices for any commodity ‘fraud’? *** Neiman Marcus does not tell customers what it paid for the clothes they buy, nor need an auto dealer reveal rebates and incentives it receives to sell cars. *** Nothing in this transaction smacks of fraud, so the settlement cannot be attacked as too low.” Mexico Money, 267 F.3d at 749 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is best to bypass marginal theories if their presence would spoil the use of an aggregation device that on the whole is favorable to holders of small claims. Instead of requiring the plaintiffs to conduct what may be a snipe hunt, district judges should do what the court did here: Invite objectors to identify an available state-law theory that the representatives should have raised, and that if presented would have either increased the recovery or demonstrated the inappropriateness of class treatment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Espinosa v. Ahearn“[O]ne must ask whether the value of relief in the aggregate is a reasonable approximation of the value of plaintiffs' claim.”
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.