Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 638 F.2d 954 - Laskey v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers

Laskey v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers’s Empirical Analysis

638 F.2d 954 · 1981

Citation profile

66
cited by 66 later decisions
3
states following
September 2013
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 6 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently September 2013 · most notably Holmes v. Continental Can Co. (1983), Plummer v. Chemical Bank (1982)

19 federal appellate · 6 district · 6 state decisions

2701981199020002010decided

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 Commissioner v. Sunnen · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Hansberry v. Lee · Ristaino v. Ross · Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Barbour

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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Since appellants had the opportunity to object to the legal representation at the prior settlement hearing and since a finding that the class was adequately represented is necessary for finding the settlement was fair and reasonable, which in turn was essential to approving the settlement ... appellants are collaterally estopped from now asserting that the legal representation was not adequate and that [class counsel] committed legal malpractice.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The acceptance of a settlement in a class action suit is discretionary with the court and will be overturned only by a showing of abuse of discretion. Accepting a settlement over the objections of the named representatives is not necessarily an abuse of discretion.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “That the class counsel proposed a settlement which the named representatives opposed does not prove that the interests of the class were not protected.”
    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.