Sperling v. Hoffman-La Roche Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
862 F.2d 439 · 1988
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 13 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2023 · most notably Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling (1990), Mooney v. Aramco Services Co. (1995)
16 federal appellate · 13 district · 2 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 2105 · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 29 U.S.C. § 254 · 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · Abney v. United States · Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated. No employee shall be a party plaintiff to any such action unless he gives his consent in writing to become such a party and such consent is filed in the court in which such action is brought.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he district court’s rationale in authorizing notice to putative class members and requiring divulgence of their identities followed the analysis articulated by Judge Posner in Woods v. New York Life Ins. Co., 686 F.2d 578 (7th Cir.1982). There the court explained that § 216(b) does more than create the right of permissive joinder already provided by Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 580. Instead, it continued, the section’s authorization of a representative-action, “surely must carry with it a right in the representative plaintiff to notify the people he would like to represent that he has brought a suit, and a power in the district court to place appropriate conditions on the exercise of that right.” Id.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he rights protected by the Double Jeopardy clause, ... the Speech or Debate clause, ... and absolute or qualified immunity ... are sui generis for purposes of the collateral order doctrine. They protect the defendants from the trial 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.