Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 564 U.S. 299 - Smith v. Bayer Corp.

Smith v. Bayer Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

564 U.S. 299 · 2011

Citation profile

85
cited by 85 later decisions
9
cited 9 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 85 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds (2013), Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds (2013)

22 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 state decisions

61020112020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 2283

Relies on Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Montana v. United States · Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah · Landis v. North American Co.

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

  1. “A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as [1] expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or [2] where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or [3] to protect or effectuate its judgments. 2”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[w]e could hardly have been more clear [in Taylor v. Sturgell , 553 U.S. 880 , 128 S.Ct. 2161 , 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008) ] that a 'properly conducted class action,' with binding effect on nonparties, can come about in federal courts in just one way -- through the procedure set out in Rule 23.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the Anti-Injunction Act's relitigation exception ... involves the requirement of preclusion law that a subsequent suit raise the 'same issue' as a previous case.”
    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.