Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 653 F.3d 95 - Casey v. Merck & Co.

Casey v. Merck & Co.’s Empirical Analysis

653 F.3d 95 · 2011

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
February 2024
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)

Relies on Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Chardon v. Fumero Soto · Welding, Inc. v. Bland County Service Authority

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

  1. “(1) Does Virginia law permit equitable tolling of a state statute of limitations due to the pendency of a putative class action in another jurisdiction? (2) Does Va.Code Ann. § 8.01-229(E)(1) permit tolling of a state statute of limitations due to the pendency of a putative class action in another jurisdiction?”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[A] federal court evaluating the timeliness of state law claims must look to the law of the relevant state to determine whether, and to what extent, the statute of limitations should be tolled by the filing of a putative class action in another jurisdiction.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “lack of authoritative state court decisions on point,”
    2 later decisions 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.