White v. Auerbach’s Empirical Analysis
500 F.2d 822 · 1974
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably Grunin v. International House of Pancakes (1975), Torrisi v. Tucson Electric Power Co. (1993)
12 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions
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 Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. of Phila. v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp. · Newman v. Stein · Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,093 Judah Rosenfeld, Etc. v. E. R. Black · Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company v. Wichita Board of Trade a-1320
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is well settled that objectors have a valuable and important role to perform in preventing collusive or otherwise unfavorable settlements, and that...they are entitled to an allowance as compensation for attorneys' fees and expenses where a proper showing has been made that the settlement was improved as a result of their efforts.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“assisted the court and enhanced the [class's] recovery.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he case is similar to Green v. Transitron Electronic Corporation, 326 F.2d 492 , 498-499 (1st Cir.1964), wherein the district court had denied an allowance to an objector’s counsel on the ground that the court was aware of the problem prior to the time when the objection was made. The Court of Appeals noted that at the time of the objection ‘none of the court’s misgivings were a matter of record,’ and held that it was ‘unfair to counsel when, seeking to protect his client’s interest and guided by facts apparent on the record, he spends time and effort to prepare and advance an argument which is openly adopted by the court, but then receives no credit therefor because the court was thinking along that line all the while.’ 326 F.2d at 499.”
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.