Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 513 F.2d 965 - Paul Bijeol v. Charles L. Benson

Paul Bijeol v. Charles L. Benson’s Empirical Analysis

513 F.2d 965 · 1975

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Nicholas J. Larionoff, Jr. v. The United States of America, Nicholas J. Larionoff, Jr. v. The United States of America (1976), Geraghty v. United States Parole Commission (1978)

26 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

250197519801990200020102020decided

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 Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · Preiser v. Rodriguez · Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · Schlanger v. Seamans

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

  1. “a representative procedure analogous to the class action provided for in Rule 23”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “does not apply to habeas corpus proceedings for the reasons stated in [ Sero ]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““We are concerned here only with the notice requirements of subdivision (c)(2), which are applicable to class actions maintained under subdivision (b)(3). By its terms subdivision (c)(2) is inapplicable to class actions for injunctive or declaratory relief maintained under subdivision (b)(2). Petitioner’s effort to qualify his suit as a class action under subdivisions (b)(1) and (b)(2) was rejected by the Court of Appeals. See n. 4, supra.””
    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.