Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 461 F.3d 219 - Nassau County Strip Search Cases v. P S 1-200

Nassau County Strip Search Cases v. P S 1-200’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

104
cited by 104 later decisions
4
states following
October 2024
most recently cited

24 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Barnes v. District of Columbia (2007), Dupler v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (2008)

24 district · 4 state decisions

810200620102020decided

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 Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor · Deposit Guaranty National Bank v. Roper · Castano v. American Tobacco Co. · Zervos v. Verizon New York, Inc. · Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

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

  1. “(A) the class members’ interests in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or against class members; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and (D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The myriad discriminatory acts that Plaintiffs allege (e.g., failure to promote, failure to train, unequal pay, disrespectful treat ment, etc.) each require independent legal analysis, and similarly challenge the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) if not also the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a). [[Image here]] Although we do not rest our decision upon Rule 23(a), cases that interpret ... the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a) illustrate the instant Plaintiffs’ inability to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)’s ‘far more demanding’ requirement that common issues predominate.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(4) Particular Issues. When appropriate, an action may be brought or maintained as a class action with respect to particular issues.”
    3 later decisions 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.