Robidoux v. Celani

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “[relevant considerations include judicial economy arising from the avoidance of a multiplicity of actions...”
• holding that “[rjelevant considerations include judicial economy arising from the avoidance of a multiplicity of actions ... ”
• holding that in determining whether joinder is impracticable, the court may consider “financial resources of class members” and “the ability of claimants to institute individual suits”
• holding that in determining whether joinder is impracticable, the court may consider “financial resources of class members” and “the ability of claimants to institute individual suits”
• instructing that courts should consider whether the lawsuit involves \requests for prospective injunctive relief which would involve future class members\
• finding the numerosity requirement was met when plaintiffs, applicants for Vermont public assistance benefits, presented documentary evidence of delays in 22 to 133 eases per month

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

163 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Robidoux v. Celani
  Second Circuit· 1993-03-10· cited 379×
• Veronica Caridad, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad
  Second Circuit· 1999-07-30· cited 339×
• Kohen v. Pacific Investment Management Co.
  Seventh Circuit· 2009-07-07· cited 231×
• In Re Flag Telecom Holdings Securities Litigation
  Second Circuit· 2009-07-22· cited 198×
• Comer v. Cisneros
  Second Circuit· 1994-08-26· cited 152×
• German by German v. Federal Home Loan Mortg. Corp.
  S.D. New York· 1995-08-22· cited 117×
• Marisol A. by Next Friend Forbes v. Giuliani
  S.D. New York· 1996-06-18· cited 117×
• Rachel Reeb v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Belmont Correctional Institution
  Sixth Circuit· 2006-01-24· cited 107×
• In Re Modafinil Antitrust Litigation
  Third Circuit· 2016-09-13· cited 105×
• Town of New Hartford v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-05-19· cited 97×
• Krimstock v. Kelly
  Second Circuit· 2002-09-18· cited 81×
• DeBoer v. Mellon Mortgage Co.
  Eighth Circuit· 1995-08-30· cited 80×
• In re Libor-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig.
  S.D. Illinois· 2018-02-28· cited 73×
• Barnes v. United States
  Federal Claims· 2005-11-03· cited 66×
• Alharbi v. Miller
  E.D. New York· 2019-03-26· cited 59×
• Floyd v. City of New York
  S.D. New York· 2012-05-16· cited 57×
• Chisolm v. TranSouth Financial Corp.
  E.D. Virginia· 2000-05-12· cited 50×
• Stinson v. City of New York
  S.D. New York· 2012-04-23· cited 49×
• O'Neil v. Appel
  W.D. Michigan· 1996-02-29· cited 49×
• Zapata v. IBP, Inc.
  D. Kansas· 1996-05-15· cited 49×