Spano v. Boeing Co.’s Empirical Analysis
633 F.3d 574 · 2011
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 2072 · 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1103 (§ 403 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1109 (§ 409 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor · General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon · Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell · Varity Corporation v. Howe · Hansberry v. Lee
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Al persons, excluding the Defendants and/or other individuals who are or may be liable for the conduct described in this Complaint, who are or were participants or beneficiaries of the Plan and who are, were or may have been affected by the conduct set forth in this Complaint, as well as those who will become participants or beneficiaries of the Plan in the future.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To “define” a thing or concept is “to state precisely or determinately [its boundaries]; to specify” or “[t]o frame or give a precise description” of a thing. Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed.1989). According to the Rule, those things to be defined in a certification order include the “class and the class claims, issues, or defenses----” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1)(B) (emphasis added). The above elements occur in a conjunctive, undifferentiated list, indicating that the requirement to “define” the “class claims, issues or defenses” is identical to the requirement to define the “class” itself within a given certification order. Id. Furthermore, the use of the definite article “the” before “class claims, issues, or defenses” connotes comprehensiveness and specificity, rather than illustrative or partial treatment, in defining those aspects of class action certification.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Focusing only on the class that the district court actually certified, we cannot find the necessary identity of interest among all class members. A claim of imprudent management, for example, is not common if the alleged conduct harmed some participants and helped others which appears to be the case. Without the common interest, there is no reason to assume that an adjudication of one person’s claim ‘as a practical matter would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.’ Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(1)(B).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Spano v. Boeing Co.
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.