Gould v. Alleco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
883 F.2d 281 · 1989
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably In re Domestic Air Transportation Antitrust Litigation (1993), United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit (1992)
22 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 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
Relies on California v. Civil Aeronautics Board · National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. New York · United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald · Clayton P. Kehoe Towing Co. v. United States · 16 Fair empl.prac.cas. 280, 11 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,637 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Joseph R. Rizzo, Fire Commissioner Appeal of Fire Officers Union
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Beginning from the unassailable premise that settlements are to be encouraged, it follows that to routinely allow non-class members to inject their concerns via objection at the settlement stage would tend to frustrate this goal. Were the rule as Weisman contends, every objection from a non-class member would trigger an examination by the court of the effects of the proposal on the objector.... We hold, therefore, that non-class members have no standing to object ... to a proposed class settlement.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Intervention of Right. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action ... when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately protected by existing parties.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In a sense, every company's stockholders ... have a stake in the outcome of any litigation involving the company, but this alone is insufficient to imbue them with the degree of `interest' required for Rule 24(a) intervention.”
3 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.