In re Baby Products Antitrust Litigation’s Empirical Analysis
708 F.3d 163 · 2013
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1712 (§ 3 of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 2072
Relies on Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert · Devlin v. Scardelletti · General Motors Corporation Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation 94-1064 94-1194 94-1195 94-1198 94-1202 94-1203 94-1207 94-1208 94-1219 · Girsh v. Jepson · Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“class members cannot be located, decline to file claims, have died, or the parties have overestimated the amount projected for distribution.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A court may approve a settlement that proposes a cy pres remedy.... The court must apply the following criteria in determining whether a cy pres award is appropriate: (a) If individual class members can be identified through reasonable effort, and the distributions are sufficiently large to make individual distributions economically viable, settlement proceeds should be distributed directly to individual class members. (b) If the settlement involves individual distributions to class members and funds remain after distributions (because some class members could not be identified or chose not to participate), the settlement should presumptively provide for further distributions to participating class members unless the amounts involved are too small to make individual distributions economically viable or other specific reasons exist that would make such further distributions impossible or unfair. (c) If the court finds that individual distributions are not viable based upon the criteria set forth in subsections (a) and (b), the settlement may utilize a cy pres approach. The court, when feasible, should require the parties to identify a recipient whose interests reasonably approximate those being pursued by the class. If, and only if, no recipient whose interest reasonably approximate those being pursued by the class can be identified after thorough investigation and analysis, a court may approve a recipient that does not reasonably approximate the interests being pursued by th”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[ C ] y pres awards should generally represent a small percentage of total settlement funds”
3 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.