Roper v. Consurve, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
578 F.2d 1106 · 1978
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 5 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 132 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2018 · most notably United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty (1980), Deposit Guaranty National Bank v. Roper (1980)
36 federal appellate · 5 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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
Relationships
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 85 · 12 U.S.C. § 86 · 15 U.S.C. § 1640 (§ 130 of the Truth in Lending Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1691E · 28 U.S.C. § 1337
Relies on Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · East Texas Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez · Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders · Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal.
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 132 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]e have held that prior to certification a class action cannot be dismissed merely because the representatives are satisfied, unless there is notice to the putative class of the proposed dismissal and a determination by the court that the dismissal is proper, as required by Rule 23(e)....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[b]y the very act of filing a class action, the class representatives assume responsibilities to the members of the class. They may not terminate their duties by taking satisfaction; a cease fire may not be pressed upon them by paying their claims.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The claims of a large number of individuals can be adjudicated at one time, with less expense than would be incurred in any other form of litigation. The claims are relatively small, said even by the plaintiffs to average less than $100 each, and the question of law is one that applies alike to all. While it may be necessary to make individual fact determinations with respect to charges, if that question is reached, these will depend on objective criteria that can be organized by a computer, perhaps with some clerical assistance. It will not be necessary to hear evidence on each claim. A number of similar class actions have been certified by district courts, and appear to have been susceptible of management. Certification will achieve one of the primary purposes of the class action, “enhancing the efficacy of private actions by permitting citizens to combine their limited resources to achieve a more powerful litigation posture.””
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.