336 Pa. Super. 289 - Fischer v. Madway’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp. · ITT Continental Baking Co. v. William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. · City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corporation, Manhattan-Ward, Incorporated v. Grinnell Corporation, 1225 Vine Street Building, Inc. v. Grinnell Corporation
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Notice in a class "'suit must present a fair recital of the subject matter and proposed terms and inform the class members of an opportunity to be heard.... It ‘may consist of a very general description of the proposed settlement, including a summary of the monetary or other benefits that the class would receive and an estimation of attorneys’ fees and other expenses.’ ... The notice need not provide a complete source of settlement information, and class members are not expected to rely upon the notices as such.” Fischer v. Madway, 336 Pa. Super. 289, 293-94 , 485 A.2d 809, 811 (1984). (citations omitted)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In effect the court should conclude that the settlement secures an adequate advantage for the class in return for the surrender of litigation rights. As with valuation problems in general, there will usually be a difference of opinion as to the appropriate value of a settlement. For this reason, judges should analyze a settlement in terms of a "range of reasonableness" and should generally refuse to substitute their business judgment for that of the proponents. (Footnote omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[A] settlement notice is not rendered inadequate merely because it does not contain an estimate of the maximum damages potentially recoverable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.