Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 862 F.3d 685 - Keil v. Lopez

Keil v. Lopez’s Empirical Analysis

862 F.3d 685 · 2017

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
February 2023
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently February 2023

4 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

12020172020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 2111

Relies on Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. · Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona · Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert · Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes

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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[O]ut of a class of approximately 3.5 million households, ... only fourteen class members submitted timely objections[,] [and] none of the named plaintiffs objected to the settlement. Thus, the amount of opposition is minuscule when compared with other settlements that we have approved.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a district court should consider (1) the merits of the plaintiff's case[ ] weighed against the terms of the settlement, (2) the defendant's financial condition, (3) the complexity and expense of further litigation, and (4) the amount of opposition to the settlement.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[M]indful of the limited scope of our review ... [w]e ask whether the District Court considered all relevant factors, whether it was significantly influenced by an irrelevant factor, and whether in weighing the factors it committed a clear error of judgment.”
    2 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.