Reeves v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 207 · 29 U.S.C. § 213 · 29 U.S.C. § 215 · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 29 U.S.C. § 255
Relies on Auer v. Robbins · Corning Glass Works v. Brennan · McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co. · Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling · Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc.
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hen determining the scope of the class, most courts focus on the following three factors: (1) the disparate factual and employment settings—e.g., whether plaintiffs were employed in the same corporate department, division, and location; (2) the various defenses available to defendant which appear to be individual to each plaintiff; and (3) fairness and procedural considerations.”
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.