Glazer v. Whirlpool Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
722 F.3d 838 · 2013
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 13 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 46 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon · Temple v. Wean United, Inc. · State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Campbell
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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hamama v. Adducci · Hill v. Snyder“• As other examples of individual issues that “overwhelm” common issues, Whirlpool notes: (1) its “defenses against members of the class may include statute of limitations, comparative negligence, and assumption of the risk, each of which is individualized and not capable of classwide resolution,” and (2) whether Whirlpool breached a duty to warn “is individualized because it depends on what each class member knew or did not know at the time of use” of the machine. Motion at 19-20 (docket no. 327-1) (emphasis in original). But the Sixth Circuit answered these arguments when it observed: “[T]here need be only one common question to certify a class. * * * Here the district court identified two primary questions that will produce in one stroke answers that are central to the validity of the plaintiffs’ legal claims: (1) whether the alleged design defects in the Duets proximately cause mold or mildew to develop in the machines and (2) whether Whirlpool adequately warned consumers who purchased Duets about the propensity for mold growth in the machines. The claims for tortious breach of warranty and negligent design rise or fall on whether a design defect proximately causes mold or mildew to develop in the Duets. Success on the negligent failure-to-warn claim depends on whether Whirlpool had a duty to warn consumers about the propensity for mold growth in Duets and breached that duty. The district court correctly ruled that these two central questions are common to the entire liab”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[C]ommonality and typicality tend to merge in practice because both of them serve as guideposts for determining whether under the particular circumstances maintenance of a class action is economical and whether the named plaintiff's claim and the class claims are so interrelated that the interests of the class members will be fairly and adequately protected in their absence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hamama v. Adducci · Hill v. Snyder
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.