Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 64 FRD 407 - Metcalf v. Edelman

Metcalf v. Edelman’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
3
states following
July 2013
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently July 2013 · most notably Alliance to End Repression v. Rochford (1977), Reyes v. Board of Supervisors (1987)

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions

14019741980199020002010decided

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 Fujishima v. Board of Education · 336 F. Supp. 543 - Eisman v. Pan American World Airlines · Hicks v. Crown Zellerbach Corp. · 293 F. Supp. 268 - Metcalf v. Swank · Williams v. Page

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.

  1. “A class must be capable of concise and exact definition. See, e. g., Eisman v. Pan American World Airlines, 336 F.Supp. 543, 547 (E.D.Pa.1971); Williams v. Page, 60 F.R.D. 29, 34-35 (N.D.Ill. 1973). Each definition proffered by plaintiffs calls for a conclusion, e. g., who were the recipients who could not obtain housing compatible with health and well-being, who should have had shelter exceptions, etc. Before an adequate determination can be made of who is a class member, this court would be required to make an adjudication that a particular class member was denied a livelihood consistent with health and well-being because such plaintiff was not granted a shelter exception.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “makes class members impossible to identify prior to individualized fact-finding and litigation, the class fails to satisfy one of the basic requirements for a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See 7 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, 1760, at 581 (2nd ed. 1972) (description of class must be sufficiently definite so that it is administratively feasible to determine whether a particular individual is a member); 3B Moore's Federal Practice 23.04, at 23-119 (”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.