21 Fair Emplpraccas 895 22 Empl Prac Dec P 30563’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
4 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2007 · most notably Paxman v. Henrico County School Board (1981), Clark v. McDonald's Corp. (2003)
4 district · 3 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 Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Edelman v. Jordan
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As is clear from the language of the Rule, it is applicable to situations in which a class of plaintiffs seeks injunctive relief against a single defendant—the party opposing the class—who has acted on grounds generally applicable to the plaintiff class”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As is clear from the language of Rule 23(b)(2), it is applicable to situations in which a class of plaintiffs seeks injunctive relief against a single defendant— the party opposing the class — who has acted on grounds generally applicable to the plaintiff class. To proceed under 23(b)(2) against a class of defendants would constitute the plaintiffs as the “party opposing the class”, and would create the anomalous situation in which the plaintiffs’ own actions or inactions could make injunctive relief against defendants appropriate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable [numerosity], (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class [commonality], (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class [typicality]; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class [representative interests].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Hess v. Hughes
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.