Rodriguez v. Swank’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently August 1996 · most notably Rodway v. United States Department of Agriculture (1975), Finberg v. Sullivan (1980)
30 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 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 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 42 U.S.C. § 1302 (§ 1102 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 553 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher · King v. Smith · McNeese v. Board of Education for Community Unit School District 187 Cahokia · United States v. Radio Television News Directors Ass'n · Damico v. California
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Class Actions Maintainable. An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied, and in addition: (2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole; or (3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“actual and timely notice of the terms thereof.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Appalachian Power Company, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Carolina Power & Light Company, Duke Power Company, Monongahela Power Company, Ohio Power Company, Potomac Edison Company, Potomac Electric Power Company, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Virginia Electric and Power Company, West Penn Power Company, Indiana & Michigan Electric Company, Kentucky Power Company, Boston Edison Company, Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Columbia & Southern Ohio Electric Company, Commonwealth Edison Company, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Dayton Power & Light Company, the Detroit Edison Company, Florida Power & Light Company, Houston Lighting & Power Company, Illinois Power Company, Long Island Lighting Company, Arkansas Power & Light Company, Mississippi Power & Light Company, Louisiana Power & Light Company, New Orleans Public Service, Inc., Montaup Electric Company, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, New England Evsv. United States Environmental Protection Agency · Appalachian Power Co. v. Train“Congress might reasonably have concluded that greater flexibility in promulgation was needed in the area of grants-in-aid in order to provide for their expeditious administration”
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.