Smith v. Sprint Communications Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• reiterating that formalities of Federal Rule 23 must be met even when all parties to the case agree to the class treatment
• reiterating that formalities of Federal Rule 23 must be met even when all parties to the case agree to the class treatment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Kent Eubank v. Pella Corporation
  Seventh Circuit· 2014-06-02· cited 90×
• In re Relafen Antitrust Litigation
  D. Massachusetts· 2005-09-28· cited 37×
• In re AT & T Mobility Wireless Data Services Sales Litigation
  N.D. Illinois· 2010-08-11· cited 18×
• Smith v. Sprint Communications Company
  Seventh Circuit· 2004-10-19· cited 11×
• Cohen v. Blockbuster Entertainment, Inc.
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2007-09-26· cited 3×
• Sallie N. Peeler v. McI Inc., and MCI Worldcom Network Services, Inc.
  Seventh Circuit· 2006-05-08· cited 2×
• Cascade Corp. v. Sprint Communications Co.
  D. Maine· 2012-02-15· cited 1×
• Thomas Riva v. Pella Corporation
  Seventh Circuit· 2014-06-02
• Peeler, Sallie N. v. MCI, Incorporated
  Seventh Circuit· 2006-05-08
• In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation
  D. Maine· 2004-12-08

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor
  Supreme Court· 1997-06-25· cited 4,991×
• Meighan v. U.S. Sprint Communications Co.
  Tennessee Supreme Court· 1996-04-29· cited 329×
• In Re \Agent Orange\ Product Liability Litigation Mdl No. 381
  Second Circuit· 1987-04-21· cited 98×
• John H. Isaacs v. Sprint Corporation
  Seventh Circuit· 2001-08-14· cited 49×
• Buhl v. U.S. Sprint Communications Co.
  Tennessee Supreme Court· 1992-10-26· cited 23×
• Zografos v. Qwest Communications Corp.
  D. Oregon· 2002-07-12· cited 5×