Marshall v. Holiday Magic, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
550 F.2d 1173 · 1977
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 6 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 116 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2015 · most notably Devlin v. Scardelletti (2002), General Motors Corporation Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation 94-1064 94-1194 94-1195 94-1198 94-1202 94-1203 94-1207 94-1208 94-1219 (1995)
39 federal appellate · 6 district · 17 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. § 1407
Relies on Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Hansberry v. Lee · Protective Committee for Independent Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson
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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“play the role of spoilers for a class of more then 31,000 people”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Of course, the district court must provide a record which adequately reveals the basis for its decision. This court has stated that when objections are made, the trial court must set forth on the record a reasoned response thereto. Mandujano v. Basic Vegetable Products, Inc., 541 F.2d 832 , 836 (9th Cir. 1976). The findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth by the district court provide an adequate basis for this court to determine that the settlement was indeed fair. However, these findings did not provide a 'reasoned response' to appellants' objections as required by Mandujano. 16 But we do not think that such specificity was required here. Appellants object to this settlement not on behalf of the class but because of their potential liability as defendants and their inability under the settlement to sue for indemnity or contribution from Holiday Magic. This is an understandable concern, but one which would have been solved by opting out of the class. They then would have preserved any separate cause of action against Holiday Magic, including one for indemnification or contribution. 17 Appellants now are playing spoilers. The court in Mandujano recognized that specific responses to objections in such an instance were unnecessary. Id. at 836. We believe that the failure of the district court to give detailed responses to appellants' objections does not call for throwing out a settlement in a complicated lawsuit for a class of more than 31,000 people.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“must present a fair recital of the subject matter and proposed terms.”
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.