Rendon v. AT & T Technologies’s Empirical Analysis
883 F.2d 388 · 1989
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably Olenhouse v. Commodity Credit Corp. (1994), United States v. Howard (1993)
31 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Hensley v. Eckerhart · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Pullman-Standard v. Swint
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“gives no notice of the party seeking an appeal. Although AT & T's argument may have merit where there is no class certification, we reject this argument when a class has been certified. Rendon was designated as the class representative below and, as a result, his actions bound the entire class. Liberally construing the specificity requirement of Rule 3(c), we hold that”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“as appellant. AT & T contends that we have no jurisdiction to consider the cross-appeal because under Fed.R.App.P. 3(c) the phrase”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e review ... under the abuse of discretion standard.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Richter, S.A., Investments u.s.a.-richter Corporation, Richardson B. Gill, Sharon Gill and Gill Wine & Grape Company, Cross-Appellants v. Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, Cross-Appellee. Tesoro Savings & Loan, Richardson B. Gill, Cross-Appellants v. Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, Cross-Appellee · Richter Sa v. Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association Tesoro Savings & Loan B
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.