Wilson v. Gordon’s Empirical Analysis
822 F.3d 934 · 2016
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1396A (§ 1902 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396w-3 · 42 U.S.C. § 18031 · 42 U.S.C. § 18041 · 42 U.S.C. § 18081 · 42 U.S.C. § 18083 · 42 U.S.C. § 18118 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Gerstein v. Pugh · Auer v. Robbins · Sosna v. Iowa · Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital · United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“By tendering to the named plaintiffs the full amount of their personal claims each time suit is brought as a class action, the defendants can in each successive case moot the named plaintiffs’ claims before a decision on certification is reached. A series of individual suits, each brought by a new named plaintiff, could individually be “picked off’ before class certification; as a practical matter, therefore, a decision on class certification could, by tender to successive named plaintiffs, be made ... difficult to procure....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(A) in that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or (B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person’s absence may: (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect the interest; or (ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[c]ourts routinely uphold preliminary injunctions where the alleged irreparable harm involves delay in or inability to obtain medical services....”
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.