Seguro de Servicio de Salud de Puerto Rico v. McAuto Systems Group, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
878 F.2d 5 · 1989
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently February 2015
4 federal appellate · 9 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.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 9 U.S.C. § 4
Relies on Jizmejian v. United States · Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants · Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game of Washington · Alabama v. Smith · Aerojet-General Corporation v. The American Arbitration Association
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“I. The foregoing filings in this case, and related filings in other cases drawn to me under the practices of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and the Local Rules of this court involve, among various other legal and factual issues not common to all these cases, an issue of constitutionality of at least one and perhaps more of the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, Pub.L. No. 104-67, 109 Stat. 737 (PSLRA). One provision of this Act declares that a district court must, within 90 days after a selected date (which may be the date of filing of the civil action), designate a class representative for class action claims, who will have the responsibility for selecting and instructing an attorney or law firm to represent the class. II. Is the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act unconstitutional insofar as it purports to place on a district court the duty to select an appropriate class representative, who will then select an attorney or firm of attorneys to represent the class? Would the act of a district judge in selecting a class representative capable of controlling the attorney or firm of attorneys to represent the class be an act of advocacy (potentially favoring some class members over others, or favoring plaintiffs over defendants or defendants over plaintiffs) that is in fundamental conflict with the role of the judiciary in the American legal system? III. Is assigning responsibility to a district court”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] motion for consolidation will usually be granted unless the party opposing it can show 'demonstrable prejudice.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Storlazzi v. Bakey“The threshold issue is whether the two proceedings involve a common party and common issues of fact or law.”
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.