Wagner v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
836 F.2d 578 · 1987
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 33 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Staton v. Boeing Co. (2003), Bowe v. Polymedica Corp. (2005)
31 federal appellate · 33 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 205 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 294 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 707 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 5 U.S.C. § 4303
Relies on International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon · Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co.
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 99 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 concurrence“'[j]urisdiction of the interlocutory appeal is in large measure jurisdiction to deal with all aspects of the case that have been sufficiently illuminated to enable decision by the court of appeals without further trial court development.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hartman v. Duffey · Doe v. Shanahan“What the Court demands from those seeking certification of a class cutting across employment status [e.g., applicants and incumbents] or job categories is a 'specific presentation' identifying the questions of law or fact common to the class representative and the members of the class proposed.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Carolee Brady Hartman All Other Approx. 50 Additional v. Joseph Duffey, Director, United States Information Agency All Other One Additional Carolee Brady Hartman All Other Approx. 50 Additional v. Joseph Duffey, Director, United States Information Agency All Other One Additional · 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 3311 - Canzolino v. United Technologies Corp., No. Cv94 0048696s (Mar. 31, 1998)
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.