Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 455 F.2d 618 - Hackett v. General Host Corp.

Hackett v. General Host Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

455 F.2d 618 · 1972

Citation profile

150
cited by 150 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
August 2009
most recently cited

118 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 150 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2009 · most notably Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay (1978), Katz v. Carte Blanche Corp. (1974)

118 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions

13201972198019902000decided

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

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 1640 (§ 130 of the Truth in Lending Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 77K (§ 11 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292

Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp. · Snyder v. Harris · Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp. · Swift & Co. Packers v. Compania Colombiana Del Caribe, S. A.

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

  1. “will afford equality of treatment as between plaintiffs and defendants.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “in those cases in which the refusal to grant class action designation amounts to a denial of a preliminary injunction broader than would be appropriate for individual relief,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “It suffices to say that by one route or the other a disappointed applicant for class action designation could, with the cooperation of the district court, in those rare instances where it might be appropriate bring before this court for review the questionable Rule 23 order. We have had no indication that the district courts of this circuit will reject applications under § 1292(b) or Rule 54(b), arbitrarily or in disregard of the policy considerations favoring, where feasible, consumer class actions warranted by federal statutes. 8”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.