Westerfeld v. Independent Processing, LLC’s Empirical Analysis
621 F.3d 819 · 2010
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization · Norfolk Redevelopment & Housing Authority v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. of Virginia · Evans Jl v. Walter Industries Inc US Tc Lp · Hart v. FedEx Ground Package System 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(i) over a class action in which— (I) greater than two-thirds of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed; (II) at least 1 defendant is a defendant— (aa) from whom significant relief is sought by members of the plaintiff class; (bb) whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted by the proposed plaintiff class; and (cc) who is a citizen of the State in which the action was originally filed; (III)principal injuries resulting from the alleged conduct or any related conduct of each defendant were incurred in the State in which the action was originally filed; and (ii) during the 3-year period preceding the filing of that class action, no other class action has been filed asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any of the defendants on behalf of the same or other persons.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“CAFA grants broad federal jurisdiction over class actions and establishes narrow exceptions to such jurisdiction”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“exception to CAFA applies to the circumstances of this case, requiring me to decline to exercise jurisdiction and remand the matter to state court. I agree. Congress established two mandatory exceptions to CAFA's broad expansion of federal jurisdiction over class actions. Under the local-controversy exception invoked by the plaintiffs here, a district court must decline to exercise jurisdiction over a class action in which 1) more than two-thirds of the class members in the aggregate are citizens of the state in which the action was originally filed, 2) at least one defendant”
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.