Wachtel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 district · 4 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he proper substantive inquiry for an appellate tribunal reviewing a certification order for Rule 23(c)(1)(B) compliance is whether the precise parameters defining the class and a complete list of the claims, issues, or defenses to be treated on a class basis are readily discernible from the text either of the certification order itself or of an incorporated memorandum opinion.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 339 F. App'x 216 - Nafar v. Hollywood Tanning Systems, Inc. · 912 F. Supp. 2d 1178 - In re Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. Securities Litigation

2. ““We acknowledge that class actions often present extraordinarily complex factual and legal scenarios, such that a complete list of the claims, issues, or defenses appropriate for class treatment may be difficult to discern or articulate at the time of certification. In addition, the 2003 amendments to the Rule eliminated so-called ‘conditional’ certifications — formerly available under Rule 23(c)(1)(C)— such that a trial court may not certify only a limited list of class claims or issues while explicitly delaying decision on other claims. The potential difficulty posed by tlie requirements of Rule 23(c)(1)(B), however, is tacitly acknowledged and directly mitigated by amended Rule 23(c)(1)(C), which allows that a certification order may be ‘altered or amended’ at any time ‘before final judgment.’ Furthermore, to the extent that circumstances genuinely warrant some evolution in the matters to be treated on a class basis in a given action, the full and clear articulation of those claims, issues, or defenses intended to be treated on a class basis at the time of the original certification order will provide a defined status quo that likely will serve to streamline any later process of adjustment.” 453 F.3d at 186-87 n.8.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation · 50 Kan. App. 2d 535 - Smith v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.

3. “[a]n increasing number of courts require a party requesting class certification to present a `trial plan' that describes the issues likely to be presented at trial and tests whether they are susceptible to class-wide proof.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Clarke v. Lane · In Re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation