61 Cited authorities

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
564 U.S. 338 (2011) Cited 6,621 times 504 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”
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor
521 U.S. 591 (1997) Cited 6,940 times 69 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts are "bound to enforce" Rule 23's certification requirements, even where it means decertifying a class after they had reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend
569 U.S. 27 (2013) Cited 2,225 times 232 Legal Analyses
Holding that at the class certification stage, "any model supporting a plaintiff's damages case must be consistent with its liability case"
Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds
568 U.S. 455 (2013) Cited 1,815 times 100 Legal Analyses
Holding that certain merits questions “should not be resolved in deciding whether to certify a proposed class,” but are “properly addressed at trial or in a ruling on a summary-judgment motion”
Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon
457 U.S. 147 (1982) Cited 5,666 times 33 Legal Analyses
Holding that named plaintiff must prove “much more than the validity of his own claim”; the individual plaintiff must show that “the individual's claim and the class claims will share common questions of law or fact and that the individual's claim will be typical of the class claims,” explicitly referencing the “commonality” and “typicality” requirements of Rule 23
Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.
429 U.S. 477 (1977) Cited 2,063 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that mere economic loss does not amount to an antitrust injury under the antitrust laws
Zenith Corp. v. Hazeltine
395 U.S. 100 (1969) Cited 2,442 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court erred when it enjoined a nonparty that was never determined to be in active concert with a defendant
West Virginia Univ. Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey
499 U.S. 83 (1991) Cited 802 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the term "reasonable attorney's fee" in 42 U.S.C. § 1988 does not provide the "explicit statutory authority" required to award expert witness fees beyond those provided by §§ 1920 and 1821
Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois
431 U.S. 720 (1977) Cited 1,286 times 61 Legal Analyses
Holding that indirect purchasers cannot recover damages under federal antitrust law
Reiter v. Sonotone Corp.
442 U.S. 330 (1979) Cited 1,156 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that "injury to business or property" was not limited to commercial interests
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,849 times 1232 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"

In Re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation

61 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 courts are "bound to enforce" Rule 23's certification requirements, even where it means decertifying a class after they had reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval

Holding that at the class certification stage, "any model supporting a plaintiff's damages case must be consistent with its liability case"

Holding that certain merits questions “should not be resolved in deciding whether to certify a proposed class,” but are “properly addressed at trial or in a ruling on a summary-judgment motion”

Holding that mere economic loss does not amount to an antitrust injury under the antitrust laws

Holding that the district court erred when it enjoined a nonparty that was never determined to be in active concert with a defendant

Holding that the term "reasonable attorney's fee" in 42 U.S.C. § 1988 does not provide the "explicit statutory authority" required to award expert witness fees beyond those provided by §§ 1920 and 1821

Holding that indirect purchasers cannot recover damages under federal antitrust law

Holding that "injury to business or property" was not limited to commercial interests

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"