Muro v. Target Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
580 F.3d 485 · 2009
Citation profile
11 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably CE Design Ltd. v. King Architectural Metals, Inc. (2011), Stockwell v. City of Harvey (2010)
11 federal appellate ·
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
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 85 · 15 U.S.C. § 1604 (§ 105 of the Truth in Lending Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1637 (§ 127 of the Truth in Lending Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1640 (§ 130 of the Truth in Lending Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1642 (Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Baker v. Carr · General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon · Sierra Club v. Morton · United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty · Mourning v. Family Publications Service, 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A claim is typical if it arises from the same event or practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class members and her claims are based on the same legal theory. Even though some factual variations may not defeat typicality, the requirement is meant to ensure that the named representative’s claims have the same essential characteristics as the claims of the class at large.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A voluntary settlement by the prospective class representative often means .that, as a practical matter, the settling individual has elected to divorce himself from the litigation and no longer retains a community of interests with the prospective class. Only if issues personal to the prospective class representative remain alive in the litigation can a court be assured that there remains sufficient concrete adverseness to ensure that the class certification issue is presented in a truly adversarial manner and, consequently, will be litigated comprehensively and clearly. An abstract interest in a matter never has been considered a sufficient basis for the maintenance of — or the continuation of — litigation in the federal courts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“All persons who were mailed a “Target VISA” card by Target Corporation or Target National Bank without first requesting or applying for said card, including Target Guest Card accountholders who were sent a “Target VISA” without requesting a “Target VISA.””
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.