Alliance to End Repression v. Rochford’s Empirical Analysis
565 F.2d 975 · 1977
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 11 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 141 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co. (2006), Rodriguez v. Hayes (2009)
27 federal appellate · 11 district · 6 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
Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · Allee v. Medrano · Blackie v. Barrack · In re Disbarment of Allison
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 141 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied, and in addition: ****** (3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Defendants contend that there are no common questions of fact or law. It is their view that this suit really involves an aggregation of individual claims.... Defendants’ arguments ignore the gravamen of plaintiffs’ complaint — the existence of an unconstitutional pattern and practice_ It is this pattern of unconstitutional activity ... that creates the common question of law or fact sufficient to satisfy Rule 23.”
3 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.