Johnson v. Nextel Communications Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
780 F.3d 128 · 2015
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor · General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon · Van Dusen v. Barrack · 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[p]redominance requires a further inquiry.... into whether the common issues can profitably be tried on a classwide basis, or whether they will be overwhelmed by individual issues.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Phase I, a jury would decide the common liability issues. In Phase II, the same jury would determine-the compensatory damages for the named plaintiffs. The jury would then determine if the class was entitled to punitive damages* and, if so, it would determine- a punitive-to-compensatory damages “ratio” based on defendants’ conduct toward the, entire class* Finally,, in Phase III, different juries would conduct abbreviated individualized damages trials for-the class members, in which individualized defenses would be. considered. After the Phase III jury determined the amount of -compensatory damages for each individual class member, the court would apply the punitive-to-compensatory damages ratio set by the Phase II jury and award the resulting punitive damages, if any, while retaining the discretion to make an independent assessment-of whether the total award was inappropriate- for any particular class member.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[O]ne of the 'matters pertinent' to a finding of predominance is 'the likely difficulties in managing a class action.' ") (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(D) ). We accordingly consider whether variations in how fraud is defined under substantive state laws introduce additional individual questions tending to defeat predominance. "When claims in a class action arise under state law-and the class comprises multiple states-the court must consider whether different state laws will apply to different members of the class.”
1 later decision 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.