Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 523 F.2d 689 - Jimenez v. Weinberger

Jimenez v. Weinberger’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

117
cited by 117 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
November 2015
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 8 district · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 117 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2015 · most notably Califano v. Yamasaki (1979), Norton Ex Rel. Chiles v. Mathews (1976)

23 federal appellate · 8 district · 13 state decisions — followed in 10 states

47019751980199020002010decided

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 · Weinberger v. Salfi · Linkletter v. Walker · Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson · Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation

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

  1. “[a]s soon as practicable after the commencement of an action brought as a class action, the court shall determine by order whether it is to be so maintained.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “First, the decision to be applied nonretro-actively must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, ... or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed.... Second, it has been stressed that “we must, * * weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation.” ... Finally, we have weighed the inequity imposed by retroactive application, for “[wjhere a decision of this Court could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our cases for avoiding the ‘injustice or hardship’ by a holding of nonretroactivity.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he text certainly implies, even if it does not state expressly, that [a class certification] decision should be made in advance of the ruling on the merits.”
    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.