D. Kansas· 4/20/2001
Lile v. Simmons
Citations
- 143 F. Supp. 2d 1267
- 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5518
- 2001 WL 428099
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “Due process requires that the Court ‘stringently’ apply the competent representation requirement because class members are bound by the judgment (unless they opt out), even though they may not actually be aware of the proceedings.”
- “Due process requires that the Court ‘stringently’ apply the competent representation requirement because class members are bound by the judgment (unless they opt out), even though they may not actually be aware of the proceedings.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Vratil
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
12 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Denney v. NorwoodSupreme Court of Kansas· 2022-03-11· cited 41×
- United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Chesapeake Energy Corp.W.D. Oklahoma· 2012-03-30· cited 31×
- Anderson Living Trust v. WPX Energy Production, LLCD. New Mexico· 2015-03-19· cited 28×
- In re Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. Securities LitigationD. New Mexico· 2012-11-26· cited 26×
- Bustillos v. Board of County CommissionersD. New Mexico· 2016-09-16· cited 26×
- Begay v. Public Service Co. of NMD. New Mexico· 2010-04-15· cited 19×
- Abraham v. WPX Production Productions, LLCD. New Mexico· 2016-08-16· cited 13×
- Lane v. PageD. New Mexico· 2011-01-10· cited 10×
- Daye v. Community Financial Service Centers, LLCD. New Mexico· 2016-02-09· cited 8×
- Lane v. PageD. New Mexico· 2007-07-02· cited 7×
- Lowery v. City of AlbuquerqueD. New Mexico· 2011-04-13· cited 7×
- Zuniga v. Bernalillo CountyD. New Mexico· 2016-10-25· cited 5×
Cites
46 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court· 1986-06-25· cited 135,235×
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court· 1986-06-25· cited 119,442×
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court· 1986-03-26· cited 58,760×
- Anderson v. CreightonSupreme Court· 1987-06-25· cited 12,768×
- Wolff v. McDonnellSupreme Court· 1974-06-26· cited 12,327×
- Bell v. WolfishSupreme Court· 1979-05-14· cited 11,438×
- Kentucky v. GrahamSupreme Court· 1985-06-28· cited 11,385×
- Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court· 1972-06-29· cited 10,835×
- Sandin v. ConnerSupreme Court· 1995-06-19· cited 9,097×
- Hewitt v. HelmsSupreme Court· 1983-02-22· cited 3,877×
- Meachum v. FanoSupreme Court· 1976-06-25· cited 3,743×
- Hall v. BellmonTenth Circuit· 1991-06-03· cited 2,581×
- Moody v. DaggettSupreme Court· 1976-11-15· cited 1,394×
- Martinez v. AaronTenth Circuit· 1978-01-23· cited 910×
- Bacchus Industries, Inc. v. Arvin Industries, Inc.Tenth Circuit· 1991-07-30· cited 779×
- Doe v. PoritzSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1995-07-25· cited 688×
- Deepwater Investments, Limited v. Jackson Hole Ski Corporation and Paul M. McCollisterTenth Circuit· 1991-07-10· cited 449×
- Green v. BransonTenth Circuit· 1997-03-14· cited 430×
- Emmett Ray McCarthy v. Dr. F. Weinberg, M.D.Tenth Circuit· 1985-01-23· cited 417×
- Vitkus v. Beatrice Co.Tenth Circuit· 1993-12-13· cited 381×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.