11 Cited authorities

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
564 U.S. 338 (2011) Cited 6,627 times 505 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 6,946 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
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts
472 U.S. 797 (1985) Cited 1,785 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the Due Process Clause of course requires that the named plaintiff at all times adequately represent the interests of the absent class members”
People v. Peque
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 7651 (N.Y. 2013) Cited 624 times
Holding that New York trial courts must inform the defendant of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty to a felony and that a failure to do so could provide a basis for withdrawing or vacating the guilty plea
Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp.
151 F.3d 402 (5th Cir. 1998) Cited 694 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that certification under Rule 23(b) was not appropriate because "plaintiffs' claims for compensatory and punitive damages must therefore focus almost entirely on facts and issues specific to individuals rather than the class as a whole"
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
People v. Anderson
66 N.Y.2d 529 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 380 times
Stating that C.P.L. § 30.30, setting forth time limitations in which People must be ready for trial, addresses only problem of prosecutorial readiness, and is not a "Speedy Trial" statute in the constitutional sense
People v. Silva
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 8215 (N.Y. 2014) Cited 63 times 1 Legal Analyses
In People v. Silva, 24 N.Y.3d 294, 998 N.Y.S.2d 154, 22 N.E.3d 1022 [2014] and People v. Hanson, 24 N.Y.3d 294, 998 N.Y.S.2d 154, 22 N.E.3d 1022 [2014], the Court of Appeals held that the trial courts committed mode of proceedings errors by failing to notify counsel of jury notes before the juries in each case reached their verdicts, even though the transcripts in both cases failed to establish whether the courts were aware that the notes had been submitted.
Klein v. Robert's Am. Food
28 A.D.3d 63 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006) Cited 62 times 1 Legal Analyses
Reversing lower court's decision that common questions predominated with respect to reliance in a New York express warranty claim
Colt Indus Shareholder Litig
77 N.Y.2d 185 (N.Y. 1991) Cited 89 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding that due process precludes extinguishing the rights of an absent plaintiff to bring an action in damages in another jurisdiction
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,889 times 1234 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"

Michael Jiannaras, Plaintiff,v.Mike Alfant, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant; Kathleen M. Ackerman, et al., Non-Party Respondents.

11 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 “the Due Process Clause of course requires that the named plaintiff at all times adequately represent the interests of the absent class members”

Holding that New York trial courts must inform the defendant of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty to a felony and that a failure to do so could provide a basis for withdrawing or vacating the guilty plea

Holding that certification under Rule 23(b) was not appropriate because "plaintiffs' claims for compensatory and punitive damages must therefore focus almost entirely on facts and issues specific to individuals rather than the class as a whole"

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

Stating that C.P.L. § 30.30, setting forth time limitations in which People must be ready for trial, addresses only problem of prosecutorial readiness, and is not a "Speedy Trial" statute in the constitutional sense

Reversing lower court's decision that common questions predominated with respect to reliance in a New York express warranty claim

Finding that due process precludes extinguishing the rights of an absent plaintiff to bring an action in damages in another jurisdiction

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"