50 Cited authorities

Lewis v. Casey
518 U.S. 343 (1996) Cited 14,240 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a prisoner must show an actual injury to state a claim for denial of access to courts
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor
521 U.S. 591 (1997) Cited 6,933 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
Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon
457 U.S. 147 (1982) Cited 5,662 times 33 Legal Analyses
Holding that named plaintiff must prove “much more than the validity of his own claim”; the individual plaintiff must show that “the individual's claim and the class claims will share common questions of law or fact and that the individual's claim will be typical of the class claims,” explicitly referencing the “commonality” and “typicality” requirements of Rule 23
Basic Inc. v. Levinson
485 U.S. 224 (1988) Cited 3,342 times 302 Legal Analyses
Holding that the District Court appropriately certified the class based on the presumption of reliance
Merck Co. v. Reynolds
559 U.S. 633 (2010) Cited 660 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that because no event preceding the critical date constituted "discovery" of facts necessary to bring the complaint, the plaintiffs' suit was timely
In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig.
552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2008) Cited 906 times 36 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs must make more than a mere " threshold showing," they must establish facts " by the preponderance of the evidence"
Miles v. Merrill Lynch & Co.
471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006) Cited 767 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that district court must make a "definitive assessment of Rule 23 requirements" and "resolve[] . . . factual disputes relevant to each Rule 23 requirement"
Baffa v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Secs. Corp.
222 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2000) Cited 685 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "class certification is inappropriate where a putative class representative is subject to unique defenses which threaten to become the focus of the litigation"
Robidoux v. Celani
987 F.2d 931 (2d Cir. 1993) Cited 873 times 2 Legal Analyses
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"
Marisol A. v. Giuliani
126 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 1997) Cited 739 times
Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class but suggesting that prior to trial the district court “ensure that appropriate subclasses are identified”
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,815 times 1232 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 77k - Civil liabilities on account of false registration statement
15 U.S.C. § 77k Cited 2,111 times 82 Legal Analyses
Holding liable for a false registration statement "every person who was a director of . . . or partner in the issuer" at time of filing
Section 2072 - Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe
28 U.S.C. § 2072 Cited 1,800 times 37 Legal Analyses
Granting the Supreme Court, not the parties, authority to "prescribe general rules of practice and procedure" for federal district court cases
Section 77m - Limitation of actions
15 U.S.C. § 77m Cited 954 times 29 Legal Analyses
Establishing a one-year statute of limitations for §§ 11 and 12 claims which begins to run upon "the discovery of the untrue statement or omission, or after such discovery should have been made by the exercise of reasonable diligence"

In Re: CitiGroup Inc. Bond Action Litigation

50 Cited authorities

Holding that a prisoner must show an actual injury to state a claim for denial of access to courts

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

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

Holding that because no event preceding the critical date constituted "discovery" of facts necessary to bring the complaint, the plaintiffs' suit was timely

Holding that plaintiffs must make more than a mere " threshold showing," they must establish facts " by the preponderance of the evidence"

Holding that district court must make a "definitive assessment of Rule 23 requirements" and "resolve[] . . . factual disputes relevant to each Rule 23 requirement"

Holding that "class certification is inappropriate where a putative class representative is subject to unique defenses which threaten to become the focus of the litigation"

Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class but suggesting that prior to trial the district court “ensure that appropriate subclasses are identified”

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"

Holding liable for a false registration statement "every person who was a director of . . . or partner in the issuer" at time of filing

Granting the Supreme Court, not the parties, authority to "prescribe general rules of practice and procedure" for federal district court cases

Establishing a one-year statute of limitations for §§ 11 and 12 claims which begins to run upon "the discovery of the untrue statement or omission, or after such discovery should have been made by the exercise of reasonable diligence"