Paskel v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 42 U.S.C. § 1383 (§ 1631 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 425 (§ 225 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon · United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty · Califano v. Yamasaki · East Texas Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Rule 23(a)(2) assures that there is a shared interest among the class in resolving a certain issue. Rule 23(a)(3) examines whether the named representative’s particular claim presents that issue on behalf of the plaintiff class. The relative simplicity of the typicality requirement may be summed up as follows: a plaintiff’s claim is typical if it arises from the same event or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class members and is based on the same legal theory.”
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.