Hassine v. Jeffes’s Empirical Analysis
846 F.2d 169 · 1988
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 55 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 183 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2018 · most notably Farmer v. Brennan (1994), General Motors Corporation Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation 94-1064 94-1194 94-1195 94-1198 94-1202 94-1203 94-1207 94-1208 94-1219 (1995)
33 federal appellate · 55 district · 8 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Estelle v. Gamble · General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon · O'Shea v. Littleton
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 183 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.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[T]he named plaintiffs’ individual circumstances are markedly different or ... the legal theory upon which the claims are based differs from that upon which the claims of other class members will perforce be based.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The inquiry that a court should make regarding the adequacy of representation requisite of Rule 23(a)(4) is to determine [1] that the putative named plaintiff has the ability and the incentive to represent the claims of the class vigorously, [2] that he or she has obtained adequate counsel, and [3] that there is no conflict between the individual’s claims and those asserted on behalf of the class.”
6 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.