Holding that refusal to certify a class "on the sole ground that it would be unmanageable is disfavored and ‘should be the exception rather than the rule’ " (quoting In re S. Cent. States Bakery Prods. Antitrust Litig. , 86 F.R.D. 407, 423 (M.D. La. 1980) )
Holding that recipients of public assistance challenging delays by the Vermont Department of Social Welfare could proceed under the "inherently transitory" exception in part because "the Department will almost always be able to process a delayed application before a plaintiff can obtain relief through litigation"
Holding that where there were variations in state laws precluding a single class of doctors alleging breaches of contract by health maintenance organizations that systematically underpaid physicians for their services, subclasses could be certified covering class members applying the same legal standards
Holding that Shutts did not require opt-out rights in a Rule 23(b)(B) class action because the plaintiffs had already submitted to the district court's jurisdiction by filing bankruptcy claims against the defendant
Holding that courts may employ Rule 23(c) to certify a class as to one claim even though all of the plaintiffs’ claims, taken together, do not satisfy the predominance requirement
Holding that an aggregate determination that “bears little or no relationship to the amount of economic harm actually caused” violates the Rules Enabling Act
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 35,040 times 1236 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"