53 Cited authorities

  1. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes

    564 U.S. 338 (2011)   Cited 4,784 times   474 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”
  2. Mathews v. Eldridge

    424 U.S. 319 (1976)   Cited 13,136 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the degree of process required depends in part on the protected interest at stake
  3. Morrissey v. Brewer

    408 U.S. 471 (1972)   Cited 9,450 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the minimum requirements of due process" in a parole revocation proceeding include "the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses"
  4. Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds

    568 U.S. 455 (2013)   Cited 1,209 times   81 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under the plain language of there-applicable Rule 23(b), plaintiffs need not prove essential predicate of fraud-on-the-market theory at the class certification stage and rejecting the argument that the court hold a mini-trial at the class certification phase because denial of certification would not bind non-named class members
  5. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts

    472 U.S. 797 (1985)   Cited 1,546 times   16 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”
  6. Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp.

    527 U.S. 815 (1999)   Cited 812 times   16 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"
  7. Califano v. Yamasaki

    442 U.S. 682 (1979)   Cited 1,588 times   9 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)"
  8. Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard

    452 U.S. 89 (1981)   Cited 1,203 times   10 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"
  9. Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy

    367 U.S. 886 (1961)   Cited 1,687 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
  10. Cooper v. Southern Co.

    390 F.3d 695 (11th Cir. 2004)   Cited 792 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employee's conclusory testimony based on her subjective belief could not preclude summary judgment against her
  11. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 26,317 times   1017 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"