Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 331 F.3d 13 - Parker

Parker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

85
cited by 85 later decisions
6
states following
November 2023
most recently cited

12 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably In Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation. (2006), Nassau County Strip Search Cases v. P S 1-200 (2006)

12 district · 7 state decisions

430200020102020decided

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 Pierce v. Underwood · BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore · Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc. · State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Campbell · Rector Etc of Holy Trinity Church 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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “should, at a minimum, satisfy itself of the following: (1) even in the absence of a possible monetary recovery, reasonable plaintiffs would bring the suit to obtain the injunctive or declaratory relief sought; and (2) the injunctive or declaratory relief sought would be both reasonably necessary and appropriate were the plaintiffs to succeed on the merits. Insignificant or sham requests for injunctive relief should not provide cover for (b)(2) certification of claims that are brought essentially for monetary recovery.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A district court `abuses' or `exceeds' the discretion accorded to it when (1) its decision rests on an error of law (such as application of the wrong legal principle) or a clearly erroneous factual finding, or (2) its decision — though not necessarily the product of a legal error or a clearly erroneous factual finding — cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"It may be that the aggregation in a class action of large numbers of statutory damages claims potentially distorts the purpose of both statutory damages and class actions. If so, such a distortion could create a potentially enormous aggregate recovery for plaintiffs, and thus an in terrorem effect on defendants, which may induce unfair settlements. And it may be that in a sufficiently serious case the due process clause might be invoked, not to prevent certification, but to nullify that effect and reduce the aggregate damage award." Id. (emphasis added).”
    2 later decisions 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.