Microsoft Corp. v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis
582 U.S. 23 · 2017
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 6 district · 7 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 2071 (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Amendments) · 28 U.S.C. § 2072
Relies on Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · Flast v. Cohen · Catlin v. United States · United States v. Procter & Gamble 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 144 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Plaintiffs in putative class actions cannot transform a tentative interlocutory order ... into a final judgment within the meaning of § 1291 simply by dismissing their claims with prejudice.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“§ 1291 's firm final-judgment rule is not satisfied whenever a litigant persuades the district court to issue an order purporting to end the litigation.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Because [this] dismissal device subverts the final-judgment rule and the process Congress has established for refining that rule and for determining when nonfinal orders may be immediately appealed, ... the tactic does not give rise to a 'final decision' under § 1291.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.