42 Cited authorities

Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo
544 U.S. 336 (2005) Cited 3,593 times 67 Legal Analyses
Holding that the securities statutes have a private of action “not to provide investors with broad insurance against market losses, but to protect them against those economic losses that misrepresentations actually cause”
Basic Inc. v. Levinson
485 U.S. 224 (1988) Cited 3,379 times 310 Legal Analyses
Holding that the District Court appropriately certified the class based on the presumption of reliance
Eisen v. Carlisle Jacquelin
417 U.S. 156 (1974) Cited 3,776 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that individual notice to class members identifiable through reasonable efforts is mandatory in (b) actions
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts
472 U.S. 797 (1985) Cited 1,804 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 942 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"
Castano v. the Am. Tobacco Co.
84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996) Cited 1,019 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court had not engaged in a rigorous analysis of predominance—that is, whether a Rule 23(b) class type was appropriate
Keele v. Wexler
149 F.3d 589 (7th Cir. 1998) Cited 668 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding plaintiff had Article III standing where defendant tried to collect an illegal collection fee, even if plaintiff did not pay the fee
Blackie v. Barrack
524 F.2d 891 (9th Cir. 1975) Cited 1,142 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that the need to determine individualized damages does not defeat class certification
Unger v. Amedisys Inc.
401 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. 2005) Cited 253 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that "findings [at the class certification stage] must be made based on adequate admissible evidence to justify class certification"
Berger v. Compaq Comput. Corp.
257 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 2001) Cited 274 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that district court erred by shifting burden to defendants to show that class representatives were inadequate
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 35,573 times 1241 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 78u-4 - Private securities litigation
15 U.S.C. § 78u-4 Cited 7,592 times 52 Legal Analyses
Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party

Barrie, et al v. Intervoice Brite Inc, et al

42 Cited authorities

Holding that the securities statutes have a private of action “not to provide investors with broad insurance against market losses, but to protect them against those economic losses that misrepresentations actually cause”

Holding that the District Court appropriately certified the class based on the presumption of reliance

Holding that individual notice to class members identifiable through reasonable efforts is mandatory in (b) actions

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 the district court had not engaged in a rigorous analysis of predominance—that is, whether a Rule 23(b) class type was appropriate

Holding plaintiff had Article III standing where defendant tried to collect an illegal collection fee, even if plaintiff did not pay the fee

Holding that the need to determine individualized damages does not defeat class certification

Holding that "findings [at the class certification stage] must be made based on adequate admissible evidence to justify class certification"

Holding that district court erred by shifting burden to defendants to show that class representatives were inadequate

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"

Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party