Findley v. Blinken’s Empirical Analysis
982 F.2d 721 · 1992
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 155 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2018 · most notably Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor (1997), In the Matter of Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Incorporated (1995)
44 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 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 11 U.S.C. § 1122 · 11 U.S.C. § 1127
Relies on Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co · Shaffer v. Heitner · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Hansberry v. Lee
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 155 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“represent solely the members of [her] respective subgroup[].”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[o]ne recurring type of such suits was the limited fund class action, aggregating 'claims . . . made by numerous persons against a fund insufficient to satisfy all claims.' " Id. at 834 (quoting Advisory Committee Notes, F.R.C.P. 23). As the superior court noted in denying plaintiffs' motion for limited-fund class certification, the Ortiz Court identified three characteristics of cases appropriate for limited-fund treatment under the rule. Id. at 838-41 . ¶ 9. First, "the totals of the aggregated liquidated claims and the fund available for satisfying them, set definitely at their maximums, demonstrate the inadequacy of the fund to pay all the claims.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Trust is not an ordinary private undertaking of a settlor to carry out private preferences. It is the mechanism established under the auspices of the Bankruptcy Court to implement a plan of reorganization. The Bankruptcy Court has continuing responsibilities to satisfy itself that the Plan is being properly implemented. Toward that end, it is fully entitled to avail itself of expert advice on the difficult matter of estimating future claims against the Trust. Whether or not the rendering of advice by such experts would encroach on the fiduciary responsibilities of trustees of a purely private trust, a matter we need not decide, such advice entails no legally cognizable impairment of the role of trustees of the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust. And we have no doubt that the role of the experts is within the broad authority of Rule 706.”
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.