Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 553 F.2d 881 - Bolton v. Murray Envelope Corp.

Bolton v. Murray Envelope Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

553 F.2d 881 · 1977

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
September 2010
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2010 · most notably Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1978), Larry Nadeau v. Raymond A. Helgemoe, Warden, New Hampshire State Prison (1978)

21 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

21019771980199020002010decided

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 Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. · Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Although the section makes no distinction between plaintiffs and defendants as to the prevailing party, at least two circuits have held that, since a defendant furthers no congressional policies, a district court should only utilize its discretion to award costs to defendants when the suit is vexatious or frivolous. Carrion v. Yeshiva University, 535 F.2d 722 (2d Cir. 1976); United States Steel Corp. v. United States, 519 F.2d 359 (3d Cir. 1975). See also Van Hoomissen v. Xerox Corp., 503 F.2d 1131 (9th Cir. 1974). In view of these cases we hold that it would be inappropriate for the district court to award any fees to the defendant in this case, either explicitly or as an offset to those fees awarded the attorney of the class.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “raise their claims before the court in such an action or be forever barred.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “is not inconsistent with the maintenance of a Rule 23(b)(2) class action,”
    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.