Beecher v. Able’s Empirical Analysis
575 F.2d 1010 · 1978
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently February 2010 · most notably General Motors Corporation Engine Interchange Litigation Oswald v. General Motors Corporation (1979), In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation (1987)
20 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 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 · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · William R. Van Gemert v. The Boeing Company and Thomas R. Wilcox
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“broad supervisory powers over the administration of class-action settlements to allocate the proceeds among the claiming class members ... equitably.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Until the fund created by the settlement is actually distributed, the court retains its traditional equity powers.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Reformation would be proper here only if Douglas could show that the parties had anticipated this possibility and had verbally agreed that in the event that claims were very low a portion of the fund would be allowed to revert to Douglas, but that this verbal agreement was mistakenly or inadvertently omitted from the written settlement agreement. As noted above, however, Douglas’ contention here is not that this had been the parties’ intention at the time of the agreement but rather that the parties had not considered this possibility at all. Even if the parties were mistaken in their assessment of the potential number of claimants against the fund, as Douglas contends, this would not be a basis for relief by reformation. ‘A mistake as to the existing situation, which leads either one or both of the parties to enter into a contract which they would not have entered into had they been apprised of the actual facts, will not justify reformation.’ Russell v. Shell Petroleum Corp., [ 66 F.2d 864 (10th Cir. 1933)] supra.”
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.