Walter W. Dierks v. Rupert C. Thompson, Trustees’s Empirical Analysis
414 F.2d 453 · 1969
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 17 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably Gonzales v. Cassidy (1973), Horton ex rel. Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District (1982)
21 federal appellate · 17 district · 4 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 Hansberry v. Lee · Snyder v. Harris · Supreme Tribe of Ben-Hur v. Cauble · National Labor Relations Board v. Gamble Enterprises, Inc. · American Federation of Musicians v. Carroll
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[u]nless the relief sought by the particular plaintiffs who bring the suit can be thought to be what would be desired by the other members of the class, it would be inequitable to recognize plaintiffs as representative, and a violation of due process to permit them to obtain a judgment binding absent plaintiffs.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In the ease at bar, while the suing plaintiffs may have been of the opinion that wise management or other factors would cause the fund to grow, others could well have thought that a vested obligation in a fixed amount would be more desirable than to incur investment risks. Under such circumstances the court could not have found that plaintiffs were “typical” of the former ... employees whom they purported to represent; they were typical of only one of two conflicting groups. Under the Rule, and as a matter of due process, plaintiffs could not represent both groups.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the defendant trustees are not simply stakeholders, but from the outset have themselves actively supported the position of [the group opposed to the plaintiffs’ construction]. Therefore, while it is not true that plaintiffs, as they would claim, represent all employees, it is true that any whom they do not represent are represented by the defendants.”
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.