Snyder v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
561 federal appellate · 393 district · 84 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,109 later decisions (24 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2022 · most notably Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission (1977), Sosna v. Iowa (1975)
561 federal appellate · 393 district · 84 state decisions — followed in 18 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedSnyder v. Harris (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1335 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2072 · 28 U.S.C. § 331
Relies on Monroe v. Pape · Pierson v. Ray · Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization · Hansberry v. Lee · Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson
Cited together with Zahn v. International Paper Co. · St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co · McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · Troy Bank of Troy Indiana v. G a Whitehead & Company · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs
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 2,109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“two or more plaintiffs unite to enforce a single title or right in which they have a common and undivided interest.”
55 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Prerequisites: One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“When two or more plaintiffs, having separate and distinct demands, unite for convenience and economy in a single suit, it is essential that the demand of each be of the requisite jurisdictional amount; but when several plaintiffs unite to enforce a single title or right, in which they have a common and undivided interest, it is enough if their interests collectively equal the jurisdictional amount.”
14 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.