FUJI Food Products, Inc.

27 Cited authorities

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
564 U.S. 338 (2011) Cited 6,910 times 508 Legal Analyses
Holding in Rule 23 context that “[w]ithout some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims for relief will produce a common answer”
Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animalfeeds Intr.
559 U.S. 662 (2010) Cited 1,715 times 211 Legal Analyses
Holding that a prudential ripeness argument was waived
Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
461 U.S. 731 (1983) Cited 978 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that the NLRB could not bar an employer from pursuing a well-grounded lawsuit for damages under state law
Deposit Guaranty Nat. Bank v. Roper
445 U.S. 326 (1980) Cited 1,001 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that denial of class certification is appealable after entry of final judgment
BEK CONSTR. CO. v. NLRB
536 U.S. 516 (2002) Cited 310 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that the First Amendment right to petition the government extends to the courts
Chemical Workers v. Pittsburgh Glass
404 U.S. 157 (1971) Cited 630 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding retirees are not "employees" within the bargaining unit
Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale's, Inc.
755 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2014) Cited 269 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the FAA, a court "may either stay the action or dismiss it outright when . . . the court determines that all of the claims raised in the action are subject to arbitration"
Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010) Cited 253 times 20 Legal Analyses
Arguing that inadmissible expert testimony cannot be used to meet Rule 23
Machinists Local v. Labor Board
362 U.S. 411 (1960) Cited 276 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that “a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period” is untimely
Stolt-Nielsen v. Animalfeeds
548 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2008) Cited 167 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that review for manifest disregard of the law is a judicial gloss of grounds articulated in the FAA
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 36,057 times 1252 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"

FUJI Food Products, Inc.

27 Cited authorities

Holding in Rule 23 context that “[w]ithout some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims for relief will produce a common answer”

Holding that a prudential ripeness argument was waived

Holding that the NLRB could not bar an employer from pursuing a well-grounded lawsuit for damages under state law

Holding that denial of class certification is appealable after entry of final judgment

Holding that the First Amendment right to petition the government extends to the courts

Holding retirees are not "employees" within the bargaining unit

Holding that under the FAA, a court "may either stay the action or dismiss it outright when . . . the court determines that all of the claims raised in the action are subject to arbitration"

Arguing that inadmissible expert testimony cannot be used to meet Rule 23

Holding that “a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period” is untimely

Holding that review for manifest disregard of the law is a judicial gloss of grounds articulated in the FAA

Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"