Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes

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

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

Comcast Corp. v. Behrend

Holding that at the class certification stage, "any model supporting a plaintiff's damages case must be consistent with its liability case"

In re Prudential Insurance Company

Holding the district court acted well within its discretion in denying an objector's request for discovery where the objector was able to present his arguments to the court during the fairness hearing and where the court found the objector "had ample opportunity to avail himself of the substantial discovery provided to Lead Counsel but failed to do so, and that additional discovery was unnecessary because [the objector] focused primarily on legal issues"

Siegel v. Shell Oil Co.

Holding that individualized inquiries regarding “why a particular plaintiff purchased a particular brand of [the product]” were necessary to establish harm to each class member under the ICFA and, thus, common issues could not predominate

Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

Holding that to prove the existence of a contract, a plaintiff must plead, among other things, "sufficient specification of the essential terms."

Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC

Holding that the party seeking class certification must demonstrate the putative class's conformance with Rule 23

Castano v. the Am. Tobacco Co.

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

Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co.

Holding that where the underlying tort theory fails, "there is no independent tort to provide a basis for liability under . . . concert of action, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting theories"

Klay v. Humana, Inc.

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

Rule 23 - Class Actions

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 17.50 - Relief for Consumers

Recognizing that a deceptive trade practice claim may consist of a breach of an implied warranty

Section 56:8-2 - Fraud, etc., in connection with sale or advertisement of merchandise or real estate as unlawful practice

Prohibiting "any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact"

Section 2A:58C-1 - Findings; definitions

Defining "[h]arm" as, inter alia, "physical damage to property, other than to the product itself"

Section 11-1-63 - Product liability actions; conditions for liability; what constitutes a defective product

Holding manufacturer or seller of product liable "in any action for damages caused by a product"

Section 50-626 - Deceptive acts and practices

Forbidding the "willful use, in any oral or written representation, of exaggeration, falsehood, innuendo or ambiguity as to a material fact"

Section 2298 - Enrichment without cause; compensation

Codifying Louisiana's doctrine of unjust enrichment

Section 34-20-1-1 - Application of article

Section 29-28-101 - Short title

Section 10-1-370 - Short title