Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
655 F.3d 1013 · 2011
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1693 · 15 U.S.C. § 1693E (Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 1693M · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon · Brown v. Gardner · Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes · In Re Tobacco II Cases
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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class members would create a risk of: (A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class; or (B) adjudications with respect to individual class members that, 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; (2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunc-tive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole; or (3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a misrepresentation is deemed material if a reasonable man would attach importance to its existence or nonexistence in determining his choice of action in the transaction in question, and as such materiality is generally a question of fact unless the fact misrepresented is so obviously unimportant that the jury could not reasonably find that a reasonable man would have been influenced by it.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'In a class action, standing is satisfied if at least one named plaintiff meets the requirements [of Article III].... Thus, we consider only whether at least one named plaintiff satisfies the standing requirements.' ” (quoting Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974 , 985 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc))); DG ex rel. Stricklin v. Devaughn, 594 F.3d 1188 , 1198 (10th Cir.2010) (”
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.