40 Cited authorities

Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights
551 U.S. 308 (2007) Cited 9,081 times 104 Legal Analyses
Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor
521 U.S. 591 (1997) Cited 6,936 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
Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds
568 U.S. 455 (2013) Cited 1,810 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”
Herman MacLean v. Huddleston
459 U.S. 375 (1983) Cited 1,309 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that an express remedy under § 11 of the 1933 Act for misleading registration statements did not preclude an overlapping implied private cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation under § 10(b) of the 1934 Act
In re Am. Med. Sys., Inc.
75 F.3d 1069 (6th Cir. 1996) Cited 1,050 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that design and manufacturing differences across ten different models of the same product meant potentially varying results on strict liability, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, and failure to warn claims
Young v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
693 F.3d 532 (6th Cir. 2012) Cited 396 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[b]efore a court may certify a class pursuant to Rule 23, 'the class definition must be sufficiently definite so that it is administratively feasible for the court to determine whether a particular individual is a member of the proposed class' "
Glazer v. Whirlpool Corp. (In re Whirlpool Corp.)
722 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2013) Cited 380 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that, if a design defect is proven, "all class members have experienced injury as a result of the decreased value of the product purchased" and all "were injured at the point of sale."
Beattie v. Centurytel
511 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2007) Cited 305 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that possible recovery of roughly $124.68 per class member was too small to encourage individuals to bring suit, thereby making a class action a superior method of adjudicating the dispute
Daffin v. Ford Motor Co.
458 F.3d 549 (6th Cir. 2006) Cited 180 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, even though not all class members had yet experienced problems, the typicality requirement was satisfied because defendant allegedly breached the warranty by providing uniformly-defective vehicles, causing plaintiff and class members to receive vehicles worth less than vehicles that conformed to the promises contained in the warranty
In re WorldCom, Inc. Securities Litigation
219 F.R.D. 267 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) Cited 163 times
Holding appointment of a lead plaintiff and certification of the class occur at two different stages of the litigation, and are to be reviewed under the separate standards that govern each process
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,823 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"
Section 101 - Definitions
11 U.S.C. § 101 Cited 26,701 times 209 Legal Analyses
Defining "securities clearing agency" by reference to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Section 77k - Civil liabilities on account of false registration statement
15 U.S.C. § 77k Cited 2,111 times 82 Legal Analyses
Holding liable for a false registration statement "every person who was a director of . . . or partner in the issuer" at time of filing

Hull v. Miller et al (TV2)

40 Cited authorities

Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"

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 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 an express remedy under § 11 of the 1933 Act for misleading registration statements did not preclude an overlapping implied private cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation under § 10(b) of the 1934 Act

Holding that design and manufacturing differences across ten different models of the same product meant potentially varying results on strict liability, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, and failure to warn claims

Holding that "[b]efore a court may certify a class pursuant to Rule 23, 'the class definition must be sufficiently definite so that it is administratively feasible for the court to determine whether a particular individual is a member of the proposed class' "

Holding that, if a design defect is proven, "all class members have experienced injury as a result of the decreased value of the product purchased" and all "were injured at the point of sale."

Holding that possible recovery of roughly $124.68 per class member was too small to encourage individuals to bring suit, thereby making a class action a superior method of adjudicating the dispute

Holding appointment of a lead plaintiff and certification of the class occur at two different stages of the litigation, and are to be reviewed under the separate standards that govern each process

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"

Defining "securities clearing agency" by reference to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Holding liable for a false registration statement "every person who was a director of . . . or partner in the issuer" at time of filing