Liles’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

cited by 13 later decisions

February 2017

most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 3 district ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on United States v. New York Telephone Co. · Waste Management Holdings, Inc. v. Mowbray · Beverly Blair and Letressa Wilbon, on Behalf of Themselves and a Class of Others Similarly Situated v. Equifax Check Services, Inc. · Lienhart v. Dryvit Systems, Inc. · Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“The district court enjoined proceedings in related litigation to preserve the settlement fund, to eliminate the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications that would deplete the fund, to avoid confusion among the class members, and to save scarce judicial resources. The court acted within its discretion in issuing the injunction because enjoining related litigation was necessary to ensure the enforceability of the order approving the preliminary settlement and to prevent further draining of the limited settlement fund. As the district court found, neither settlement nor notification of class members could be achieved if the settlement fund were eaten up by litigation in other courts. Without enjoining related litigation, the court ran the risk of undermining the settlement that had been negotiated and preliminarily approved and of exhausting the only asset available for class recovery. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in enjoining related litigation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Stott v. Capital Financial Services, Inc.
“[(Injunctions of related proceedings in other federal courts are appropriate when necessary for adjudication or settlement of a case.”); Hillman v. Webley, 115 F.3d 1461, 1469 (10th Cir.1997) (in connection with class action settlement,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Lucas v. Kmart Corp.
“wasting” sub-limit provision means “the value of the policy diminishes as funds,” including defense costs,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Union Insurance v. Hull & Co.

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.