Olden v. Corp’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
2 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. (2005), 945 So. 2d 1246 - Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc. (2006)
2 district · 10 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
Relies on United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc. · Fw/pbs Inc II v. City of Dallas Mjr Inc · Laird v. Tatum
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.
“As the district court properly noted, it can bifurcate the issue of liability from the issue of damages, and if liability is found, the issue of damages can be decided by a special master or by another method.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“may suggest that individual damage determinations might be necessary, but the plaintiffs have raised common allegations which would likely allow the court to determine liability (including causation) for the class as a whole---- As the district court properly noted, it can bifurcate the issue of liability from the issue of damages, and if liability is found, the issue of damages can be decided by a special master or by another method. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(4)(A); see also Simon v. Philip Morris Inc., 200 F.R.D. 21, 30 (E.D.N.Y.2001) (“By bifurcating issues like general liability or general causation and damages, a court can await the outcome of a prior liability trial before deciding how to provide relief to the individual class members.”). Therefore, the aforementioned minor complaints can be dealt with in the damages phase if necessary, and it is likely premature to address' these issues at this point.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““Disputes over whether [an] action is primarily for injunctive ... relief rather than a monetary award neither promote the disposition of the case on the merits nor represent a useful expenditure of energy. Therefore, they should be avoided. If the Rule 23(a) prerequisites have been met and injunctive or declaratory relief has been requested, the action usually should be allowed to proceed. Those aspects of the case not falling within Rule 23(b)(2) should be treated as incidental. Indeed, quite commonly they will fall within Rule 23(b)(1) or Rule 23(b)(3) and may be heard on a class basis under one of those subdivisions. Even when this is not the case, the action should not be dismissed.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.