Gutierrez v. Johnson & Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
523 F.3d 187 · 2008
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2023 · most notably Mobley v. Central Intelligence Agency (2015), Lizardo v. United States (2010)
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Bowles v. Russell · Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co. · Kontrick v. Ryan · Eberhart v. United States · Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc.
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appeals. A court of appeals may permit an appeal from an order granting or denying class-action certification under this rule if a petition for permission to appeal is filed with the circuit clerk within 10 days after the order is entered. An appeal does not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge or the court of appeals so orders.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A Rule 23(f) appeal is a specific type of interlocutory appeal, and the courts of appeals have very broad discretion in deciding whether to grant permission to pursue a Rule 23(f) appeal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) advisory committee’s note. According to the Advisory Committee’s Note, which was appended to Rule 23 following the 1998 adoption of Rule 23(f), “[t]he court of appeals is given unfettered discretion whether to permit the appeal, akin to the discretion exercised by the Supreme Court in acting on a petition for certiorari.” Id. As the Note further states, “[permission to appeal may be granted or denied on the basis of any consideration that the court of appeals finds persuasive.” Id.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“AA”) motion to strike the Motion. AA argues that the district court's order was not an "order granting or denying class-action certification” under Rule 23(f). Because Harper's petition was untimely, we do not reach this argument. 2 . Rules 23(0 and 6(a)(1)(B) were amended effective December 1, 2009 to provide for a fourteen day deadline including Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. The old rules imposed a ten day deadline, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. Because December 25, 2009 was a legal holiday, the deadline would have been December 31, 2009 under the old rules. Harper argues that because the Supreme Court granted discretion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2074 (a), for courts to apply the new rules to pending cases as "just and practicable,” that we should apply the old rules to his case. However, his argument is not persuasive. A simple change in the calculation of an appellate deadline is not a rule for which we must provide a grace period for litigants to adjust, and the new rules were in place when the district court entered its order on December 16, 2009. Therefore, it is "just and practicable”
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.