Hiser v. Franklin’s Empirical Analysis
94 F.3d 1287 · 1996
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently February 2020 · most notably Idaho Sporting Congress, Inc. v. Rittenhouse (2002), Frank v. United Airlines, Inc. (2000)
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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
Relies on Lewis Director Arizona Department of Corrections v. Casey · Bounds v. Smith · Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education · Wright v. Collins · Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
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.
“must be applied carefully in the class action context.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The basic effort to limit class adjudication as close as possible to matters common to members of the class frequently requires that nonparticipating members of the class remain free to pursue individual actions that would be merged or barred by claim preclusion had a prior individual action been brought for the relief demanded in the class action. An individual who suffered particular injury as a result of practices enjoined in a class action, for instance, should remain free to seek a damages remedy even though claim preclusion would defeat a second action had the first action been an individual suit for the same injunctive relief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he general rule is that a class action suit seeking only declaratory and injunctive relief does not bar subsequent individual damage claims by class members, even if based on the same events. In fact, “every federal court of appeals that has considered the question has held that a class action seeking only declaratory or injunctive relief does not bar subsequent individual suits for damages.””
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.