Serrano 06-17366 v. Connect Inc’s Empirical Analysis
478 F.3d 1018 · 2007
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably United States v. Calaway (1975), Kaufman v. Allstate New Jersey Insurance (2009)
30 federal appellate · 8 district ·
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 Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Snyder v. Harris · Breuer v. Jim's Concrete of Brevard, Inc. · Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co · Evans Jl v. Walter Industries Inc US Tc Lp
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(4) A district court shall decline to exercise jurisdiction under paragraph (2)— (A) (i) over a class action in which— (I) greater than two-thirds of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed; (II) at least 1 defendant is a defendant— (aa) from whom significant relief is sought by members of the plaintiff class; (bb) whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted by the proposed plaintiff class; and (cc) who is a citizen of the State in which the action was originally filed; and (III)principal injuries resulting from the alleged conduct or any related conduct of each defendant were incurred in the State in which the action was originally filed; and (ii) during the 3-year period preceding the filing of that class action, no other class action has been filed asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any of the defendants on behalf of the same or other persons....”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Implicit in ... subsection[] [1332](d)(4) is that the court has jurisdiction, but the court ... must decline to exercise such jurisdiction.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs ( 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d)(2)); 2. diversity of citizenship exists between at least one plaintiff and one defendant (i.e. there is at least “minimal diversity”) ( 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d)(2)); 3. the primary defendants are not “States, State officials, or other governmental entities against whom the district court may be foreclosed from ordering relief’' ( 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d)(5)(A)); and 4. the number of members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate is at least 100 ( 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d)(5)(B)).”
2 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.