green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
5.5 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2008 · 2 courts ·
…numerosity is presumed when a class consists of forty or more members.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Dupler v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
numerosity is presumed when a class consists of forty or more members.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Attenborough v. Construction & General Building Laborers' Local 79
numerosity is presumed when a class consists of forty or more members.
discussed
Cited "see"
Keyes v. North Carolina Department of Transportation
See Morrell v. Flaherty, 338 N.C. 230, 238 , 449 S.E.2d 175, 180 (1994) (An “agency’s interpretation [of its regulations] must be given controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1122 , 132 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Parker v. Time Warner Entertainment Co.
See Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Town of Hyde Park, 47 F.3d 473, 483 (2d Cir.1995), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1122 , 115 S.Ct. 2277 , 132 L.Ed.2d 281 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Imperial Chemicals Ltd. v. Pkb Scania (Usa)
See International Ore & Fertilizer Corporation v. SGS Control Services, Inc., 38 F.3d 1279 , 1285 (2nd Cir.1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1122 , 115 S.Ct. 2276 , 132 L.Ed.2d 280 (1995) (noting that a professional hold inspection company that issued formal certificates essential to maritime commerce was "fully aware that a negligent inspection may cause the loss of an entire cargo.") Having found no inexcusable delay, we need not address the prejudice prong of the doctrine of laches.
discussed
Cited "see"
Maxwell Chase Technologies, L.L.C. v. KMB Produce, Inc.
See Akro Corp. v. Luker, 45 F.3d 1541, 1543 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1122 , 115 S.Ct. 2277 , 132 L.Ed.2d 281 (1995); Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Royal Sovereign Corp., 21 F.3d 1558, 1565 (Fed.Cir.1994) (“The creation and application of a uniform body of Federal Circuit law in this area would clearly promote judicial efficiency, would be consistent with our mandate [to achieve national uniformity in the field of patent law], and would not create undue conflict and confusion at the district court level.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Silva v. Kaiser Permanente
See Hubbard v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Assn., 42 F.3d 942 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1122 , 115 S.Ct. 2276 , 132 L.Ed.2d 280 (1995) *600 (claim regarding denial of cancer treatments deemed “experimental” by plan guidelines was preempted by ERISA).
cited
Cited "see"
ESAB Group, Inc. v. Centricut, LLC
See Akro Corp. v. Luker, 45 F.3d 1541 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1122 , 115 S.Ct. 2277 , 132 L.Ed.2d 281 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Snyder Industries, Inc. v. Clawson Container Co.
See Akro Corp. v. Luker, 45 F.3d 1541, 1543 (Fed.Cir.) cert. denied 515 U.S. 1122 , 115 S.Ct. 2277 , 132 L.Ed.2d 281 (1995); Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Royal Sovereign Corp., 21 F.3d 1558, 1564 (Fed.Cir.) cert. dismissed 512 U.S. 1273 , 115 S.Ct. 18 , 129 L.Ed.2d 917 (1994); Lifting Technologies, Inc. v. Dixon Indus., Inc., 1996 WL 653391 at *2 (D.Mont.1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc.
See Akro Corp. v. Luker, 45 F.3d 1541, 1548 (Fed.Cir.) (distinguishing general proposition), ce rt. denied, 515 U.S. 1122 , 115 S.Ct. 2277 , 132 L.Ed.2d 281 (1995); Ryobi America Corp. v. Peters, 815 F.Supp. 172, 176 (D.S.C.1993) (determining that the declaratory judgment action did not arise out of the letters; rather, the transaction was the granting of a patent in Washington, D.C., and the subsequent manufacture of an allegedly infringing product); KVH Industries, Inc. v. Moore, 789 F.Supp. 69, 72-73 (D.R.I.1992) (explaining that the letters did not assert a claim under the state laws; rath…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Risk Management Alternatives, Inc.
See, e.g., Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Town of Hyde Park, 47 F.3d 473, 483 (2d Cir.), cert, denied, 515 U.S. 1122 , 115 S.Ct. 2277 , 132 L.Ed.2d 281 (1995) (recognizing that numerosity is presumed at a level of forty members). 2.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Estate of Warhol
See, e.g., International Ore & Fertilizer Corp. v. SGS Control Servs., Inc., 38 F.3d 1279 , 1286 (2d Cir.1994) (“Appellants ... had notice from [the appellee’s Rule 11 sanctions] motion, and an opportunity to be heard by opposing the motion in the affidavit submitted.”), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1122 , 115 S.Ct. 2276 , 132 L.Ed.2d 280 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Schlaifer Nance & Company, Inc. v. Estate Of Andy Warhol
See, e.g., International Ore & Fertilizer Corp. v. SGS Control Servs., Inc., 38 F.3d 1279 , 1286 (2d Cir. 1994) ("Appellants ... had notice from [the appellee's Rule 11 sanctions] motion, and an opportunity to be heard by opposing the motion in the affidavit submitted."), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1122 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ansari v. New York University
Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, § 23.22[3][a] (3d ed.1997) (hereinafter “Moore’s”); see also Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Town of Hyde Park, 47 F.3d 473, 483 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1122 , 115 S.Ct. 2277 , 132 L.Ed.2d 281 (1995).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Savoy
v.
Cascade County Sheriff's Department
v.
Cascade County Sheriff's Department
No. 94-1735.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 5, 1995.
515 U.S. 1122
Published
Citer courts: E.D. New York (1) · S.D. New York (1)
Sup. Ct. Mont. Certiorari denied.