Carr v. Conoco Plastics, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions

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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It [would be] foolhardy to say that once plaintiffs have removed [constitutionally invalid] practices at the door, they are required to start anew in order to remove those that exist on the inside. Such a practice would result in a multiplicity of suits and a waste of time and money for all interested parties.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kohn v. Royall, Koegel & Wells · Aiken v. Neiman-Marcus

2. ““This is supported by numerous authorities. Singleton v. Board of Commissioners of State Institutions, 5 Cir., 1966, 356 F.2d 771 , where public facilities were involved and the Court held ‘the plaintiffs must show past use of the facilities, where feasible, and a right to, or a reasonable possibility of future use.’ Anderson v. City of New Albany, 5 Cir., 1963, 321 F.2d 649 , where the Court held that in a class action to enjoin enforcement of segregation of the races in certain public and private facilities of the city it was not required that a plaintiff must have subjected himself to arrest before bringing the action. Cypress v. Newport News General & Nonsectarian Hospital Ass’n., 4 Cir., 1967, 375 F.2d 648 , where the Court held that class actions are to be considered in light of the particular circumstances of the case and sustained a class action in the suit against a hospital to open its staff to Negroes. Rackley v. Board of Trustees of Orangeburg Reg. Hospital, 4 Cir., 1962, 310 F.2d 141 , a suit to desegregate a hospital where the Court held that plaintiff would not be required to prosecute separate suits for each activity or department of the hospital.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Coleman v. Humphreys County Memorial Hospital

3. “(a) Prerequisites to a Class Action. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all 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 class. (b) Class Actions Maintainable. An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied, and in addition: * * sfc * sfc * (2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole; .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 491 F. Supp. 89 - Newman v. Avco Corporation-Aerospace Structures Division