Valentino’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 32 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 223 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably 24 Cal. 4th 906 - Wash. Mut. Bank v. Superior Court of Orange Cty. (2001), 23 Cal. 4th 429 - Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co. (2000)
1 federal appellate · 32 district · 18 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · Pelaes v. United States · United Families of America v. Kendrick · Federal Communications Commission v. Home Box Office, Inc.
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 223 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied, and in addition: ... (3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[e]ven if the common questions do not predominate over the individual questions so that class certification of the entire action is warranted, Rule 23 authorizes the district court in appropriate cases to isolate the common issues under Rule 23(c)(4)(A) and proceed with class treatment of these particular issues.”
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.