Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 538 F.2d 991 - Samuel v. University of Pittsburgh

Samuel v. University of Pittsburgh’s Empirical Analysis

538 F.2d 991 · 1976

Citation profile

124
cited by 124 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

55 federal appellate · 11 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 124 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2018 · most notably City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd. (1999), Potashnick v. Port City Construction Co. (1980)

55 federal appellate · 11 district · 12 state decisions

66019761980199020002010decided

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 Barrett v. United States · Ristaino v. Ross · Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. of Phila. v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp. · Wetzel v. Liberty Mutual Insurance · Board of Education v. Mapp

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

  1. “In almost every class action, factual determinations [of damages] ... to individual class members must be made. [Citations.] Still we know of no case where this has prevented a court from aiding the class to obtain its just restitution. Indeed, to decertify a class on the issue of damages or restitution may well be effectively to sound the death-knell of the class action device.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he law is clear that a district court may not deny costs to the prevailing party unless it supports that determination with an explanation.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “However, we recognize that there may be circumstances where the Court could properly decertify a class. See, e. g., Katz v. Carte Blanche Corp., 496 F.2d 747 (3d Cir. (en banc), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 885 , 95 S.Ct. 152 , 42 L.Ed.2d 125 (1974); Nix v. Grand Lodge of Int’l Ass’n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 479 F.2d 382 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1024 , 94 S.Ct. 449 , 38 L.Ed.2d 316 (1973).”
    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.