Sherwood v. Microsoft Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1407 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447
Relies on Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission · St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co · Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets · City of Indianapolis v. Chase Nat Bank of City of New York · Healy Nh v. Ratta
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There is a growing trend [in non-class action suits] to find the amount in controversy to be met if either the plaintiffs harms or the defendant’s cost of compliance will exceed $75,000. The majority of courts, however, have adopted the position that in class actions the plaintiffs viewpoint should be followed. Were the court to consider the amount in controversy from the defendant’s viewpoint, the rule against no-naggregation could be circumvented. A defendant should not be able to aggregate its potential cost of complying with injunctive relief sought by multiple plaintiffs in order to obtain a federal forum when the [individual] Plaintiffs cannot do so relative to their claims.”
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.