56 Cited authorities

  1. Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor

    521 U.S. 591 (1997)   Cited 6,988 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. Eisen v. Carlisle Jacquelin

    417 U.S. 156 (1974)   Cited 3,766 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that individual notice to class members identifiable through reasonable efforts is mandatory in (b) actions
  3. Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co.

    339 U.S. 306 (1950)   Cited 10,346 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that due process requires a hearing "appropriate to the nature of the case"
  4. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.

    150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 3,067 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"
  5. Staton v. Boeing Co.

    327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 1,938 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"
  6. Mourning v. Family Publications Service, Inc.

    411 U.S. 356 (1973)   Cited 813 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under rational basis review, "[i]t is not a function of the courts to speculate as to whether the statute is unwise or whether the evils sought to be remedied could better have been regulated in some other manner"
  7. Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp.

    976 F.2d 497 (9th Cir. 1992)   Cited 1,623 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendants' statements emphasizing superior quality were material because "a reasonable jury could conclude that [the company] publicly released optimistic statements ... when it knew [its product] could not be built reliably"
  8. Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp.

    290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 1,084 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding state law governing underlying claims in a diversity action “also governs the award of fees”
  9. Valentino v. Carter-Wallace, Inc.

    97 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 709 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court abused its discretion by certifying the class in part because the plaintiffs made "no showing . . . of how the class trial could be conducted"
  10. Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n

    688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982)   Cited 1,133 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding a settlement must stand or fall in its entirety because a district court cannot "delete, modify or substitute certain provisions"
  11. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 35,128 times   1237 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 2 - One Form of Action

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 2   Cited 693 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing for "one form of action to be known as 'civil action,'" in lieu of discretely labeled actions at law and suits in equity
  13. Section 632 - Unlawful eavesdropping or recording

    Cal. Pen. Code § 632   Cited 551 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Providing for "imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year"
  14. Section 9.73.030 - Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication-Consent required-Exceptions

    Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030   Cited 269 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting recording of private conversations
  15. Section 637.2 - Action against person who committed violation; injunctive relief

    Cal. Pen. Code § 637.2   Cited 210 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Providing for damages of the greater of $5,000 per violation or three times the plaintiff's actual damages
  16. Section 9.73.060 - Violating right of privacy-Civil action-Liability for damages

    Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.060   Cited 45 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Any person who, directly or by means of a detective agency or any other agent, violates the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to legal action for damages, to be brought by any other person claiming that a violation of this statute has injured his or her business, his or her person, or his or her reputation. A person so injured shall be entitled to actual damages, including mental pain and suffering endured by him or her on account of violation of the provisions of this chapter, or liquidated

  17. Section 10-402 - Interception of communications generally; divulging contents of communications; violations of subtitle

    Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402   Cited 41 times
    Authorizing judges to issue ex parte orders to intercept wire communications
  18. Section 200.620 - Interception and attempted interception of wire communication prohibited; exceptions

    Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.620   Cited 27 times

    1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 5 and NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, 209.419 and 704.195, it is unlawful for any person to intercept or attempt to intercept any wire communication unless: (a) The interception or attempted interception is made with the prior consent of one of the parties to the communication; and (b) An emergency situation exists and it is impractical to obtain a court order as required by NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, before the interception, in which event

  19. Section 10-410 - Civil liability; defense to civil or criminal action

    Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-410   Cited 9 times

    (a) Any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this subtitle shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose, or use the communications, and be entitled to recover from any person: (1) Actual damages but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher; (2) Punitive

  20. Section 200.690 - Penalties

    Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.690   Cited 10 times
    Enforcing NRS 200.650 exclusively with criminal prosecution and civil damages