Martinez v. Petrenko’s Empirical Analysis
792 F.3d 173 · 2015
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 36 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 29 U.S.C. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 207
Relies on Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Trans-Spec Truck Service, Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc. · Ruiz Rivera v. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, LLC · Calvi v. Knox County · Manning v. Boston Medical Center Corp.
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(i) has employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or ... has employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person; and (ii) is an enterprise whose annual gross volume ['AGV'] of sales made or business done is not less than $500,000....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the nexus to commerce is an element of the claim, without which there is no entitlement to recovery, and Martinez sought to change entirely the theory of establishing a nexus.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“unquestionably would prejudice defendant, whose focus until that time had been on the adequacy of the warning labels and not on the costs and benefits of the product itself.”
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.