53 Cited authorities

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
564 U.S. 338 (2011) Cited 6,637 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”
Mathews v. Eldridge
424 U.S. 319 (1976) Cited 15,749 times 42 Legal Analyses
Holding that a procedure based on written submissions was adequate because it included safeguards against mistake including that the agency informed the recipient of its tentative assessment and the evidence supporting it and an opportunity was then afforded the recipient to submit additional evidence "enabling him to challenge directly the accuracy of information in his file as well as the correctness of the agency's tentative conclusions"
Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds
568 U.S. 455 (2013) Cited 1,819 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”
Morrissey v. Brewer
408 U.S. 471 (1972) Cited 10,679 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that parolees "must have an opportunity to be heard and to show . . . that circumstances in mitigation suggest that the violation does not warrant revocation"
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts
472 U.S. 797 (1985) Cited 1,788 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”
Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp.
527 U.S. 815 (1999) Cited 931 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a fairness hearing under Rule 23(e) is no substitute for rigorous adherence to those provisions of the Rule designed to protect absentees"
Califano v. Yamasaki
442 U.S. 682 (1979) Cited 1,978 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that claimants could bring social security class action "at least so long as the membership of the class is limited to those who meet the requirements of § 205(g)"
Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard
452 U.S. 89 (1981) Cited 1,419 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in considering a proposal to certify a class, the district court's discretion is "bounded by the relevant provisions of the Federal Rules"
Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy
367 U.S. 886 (1961) Cited 1,782 times
Holding that where plaintiff "remained entirely free to obtain employment" either with her employer or another employer, her liberty right in "follow[ing] a chosen trade or profession" was not implicated
Cooper v. Southern Co.
390 F.3d 695 (11th Cir. 2004) Cited 882 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employee's conclusory testimony based on her subjective belief could not preclude summary judgment against her
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,931 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.

53 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 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 parolees "must have an opportunity to be heard and to show . . . that circumstances in mitigation suggest that the violation does not warrant revocation"

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 "a fairness hearing under Rule 23(e) is no substitute for rigorous adherence to those provisions of the Rule designed to protect absentees"

Holding that claimants could bring social security class action "at least so long as the membership of the class is limited to those who meet the requirements of § 205(g)"

Holding that, in considering a proposal to certify a class, the district court's discretion is "bounded by the relevant provisions of the Federal Rules"

Holding that where plaintiff "remained entirely free to obtain employment" either with her employer or another employer, her liberty right in "follow[ing] a chosen trade or profession" was not implicated

Holding that an employee's conclusory testimony based on her subjective belief could not preclude summary judgment against her

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"