Daniels v. Bursey’s Empirical Analysis
430 F.3d 424 · 2006
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Devlin v. Scardelletti · Marino v. Ortiz · Culver v. City of Milwaukee · Churchill Village Llc v. General Electric · Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Culver, 277 F.3d at 910 (citations omitted). The Culver case does not hold that a class action attorney is a party; rather, Culver suggests the precarious nature of such a proposition and notes that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Daniels v. Bursey“and therefore have the capacity to appeal, even if they are not formally recognized as such. Devlin, 536 U.S. at 7 , 122 S.Ct. 2005 (noting that the Supreme Court has”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Daniels v. Bursey“In Culver , however, this statement was made in the context of illustrating”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Daniels v. Bursey
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.