§Why CasetextPricing

Carter et al v. Washburn et al

MOTION to Certify Class

32 Cited authorities

  1. Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor

    521 U.S. 591 (1997)   Cited 6,952 times   69 Legal Analyses
    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

  2. Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds

    568 U.S. 455 (2013)   Cited 1,817 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”

  3. Eisen v. Carlisle Jacquelin

    417 U.S. 156 (1974)   Cited 3,762 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that individual notice to class members identifiable through reasonable efforts is mandatory in (b) actions

  4. Johnson v. California

    543 U.S. 499 (2005)   Cited 813 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "express racial classifications" remain subject to strict scrutiny even in the prison context

  5. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.

    150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 3,051 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " common nucleus of facts and potential legal remedies dominate[d]" over "idiosyncratic differences between state consumer protection laws" where a nationwide class of minivan buyers’ claims turned on "questions of [the manufacturer’s] prior knowledge of the [vehicle’s] deficiency, the design defect, and a damages remedy"

  6. Staton v. Boeing Co.

    327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 1,926 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "named plaintiffs ... are eligible for reasonable incentive payments" in addition to reimbursement "for their substantiated litigation expenses, and identifiable services rendered to the class directly under the supervision of class counsel"

  7. Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank

    479 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 788 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that damage waivers were valid and effective unless the defendant could prove to a "legal certainty" that damages exceeded $5,000,000

  8. Sprague v. General Motors Corp.

    133 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,011 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the principle that the terms of the SPD control when they conflict with the terms of the underlying plan does not apply when the SPD is merely silent on an issue because "[a]n omission from the summary plan description does not, by negative implication, alter the terms of the plan itself"

  9. Dunleavy v. Nadler

    213 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 867 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding an incentive award to the class representatives

  10. Armstrong v. Davis

    275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 747 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " Garrett makes clear that . . . there is no barrier to the injunction against Nielson in his official capacity as Secretary of the Board [under the ADA]."

  11. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 34,923 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"

  12. Rule 17 - Plaintiff and Defendant; Capacity; Public Officers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 17   Cited 9,151 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Providing that, for this type of entity, "[c]apacity to sue or be sued is determined . . . by the law of the state where the court is located"

  13. Section 1901 - Congressional findings

    25 U.S.C. § 1901   Cited 4,757 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Finding that “an alarmingly high percentage of [Indian] children are placed in non-Indian . . . adoptive homes”

  14. Section 1912 - Pending court proceedings

    25 U.S.C. § 1912   Cited 3,116 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting foster care placement unless a State presents evidence from "qualified expert witnesses ... that the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child"

  15. Section 1903 - Definitions

    25 U.S.C. § 1903   Cited 2,833 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Defining "Indian" as encompassing only members of federally recognized tribes

  16. Section 1911 - Indian tribe jurisdiction over Indian child custody proceedings

    25 U.S.C. § 1911   Cited 1,117 times
    Granting tribal courts only concurrent jurisdiction where the Indian child is "not domiciled or residing within the reservation"

  17. Section 1915 - Placement of Indian children

    25 U.S.C. § 1915   Cited 423 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Granting adoptive placement preference to "a member of the [Indian] child's extended family"