Kremens v. Bartley’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
309 federal appellate · 42 district · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 715 later decisions (37 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Bell v. Wolfish (1979), United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty (1980)
309 federal appellate · 42 district · 51 state decisions — followed in 15 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.
Relationships
Relies on Warth v. Seldin · Baker v. Carr · Singleton v. Wulff · Gerstein v. Pugh · Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority
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 715 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a class representative must be a part of the class and 'possess the same interest and suffer the same injury' as the class members.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. East Texas Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez · Carolee Brady Hartman All Other Approx. 50 Additional v. Joseph Duffey, Director, United States Information Agency All Other One Additional Carolee Brady Hartman All Other Approx. 50 Additional v. Joseph Duffey, Director, United States Information Agency All Other One Additional“(I)t is only a 'properly certified' class that may succeed to the adversary position of a named representative whose claim becomes moot.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The fact that the Act was passed after the decision below does not save the named appellees' claims for mootness. There must be a live case or controversy before this Court, and we apply the law as it is now, not as it stood below. . . . Thus the enactment of the new statute clearly moots the claims of the named appellees . . . .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.