26 Cited authorities

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
564 U.S. 338 (2011) Cited 6,629 times 505 Legal Analyses
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”
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"
Messner v. Northshore Univ. HealthSystem
669 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2012) Cited 785 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove disputed Rule 23 requirements by a preponderance of the evidence
Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino
186 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 1999) Cited 390 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court "reasonably presumed that those potential class members still employer by [the defendant employer] might be unwilling to sue individually or join a suit for fear of retaliation at their jobs" such that class certification was proper
Kohen v. Pac. Inv. Mgmt
571 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2009) Cited 268 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that "one named plaintiff with standing . . . is all that is necessary"
Redland Soccer Club v. Dept. of Army of U.S.
55 F.3d 827 (3d Cir. 1995) Cited 247 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment was proper where plaintiffs presented no expert evidence to support emotional distress claim based on exposure to chemicals
Synfuel Techs., Inc. v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.
463 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2006) Cited 175 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding a settlement inadequate because the vouchers "share some characteristics of coupons, including forced future business with the defendant and . . . the likelihood that the full amount of [Defendant's] gains will not be disgorged."
M.D. ex rel. Stukenberg v. Perry
675 F.3d 832 (5th Cir. 2012) Cited 129 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that district court erred in finding commonality, where court's discussion “contained no reference to any of the three causes of action advanced on behalf of the proposed class, nor did the district court ‘look beyond the pleadings to understand the claims, defenses, relevant facts, and applicable substantive law in order to make a meaningful determination” about commonality
Armstrong v. Board of School Directors
616 F.2d 305 (7th Cir. 1980) Cited 255 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that notice sent out twelve days before fairness hearing was not a violation of due process
Isby v. Bayh
75 F.3d 1191 (7th Cir. 1996) Cited 129 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that courts "may disregard potentially difficult jurisdictional issues and proceed directly to the merits where there is no practical difference in the outcome."
Section 1407 - Multidistrict litigation
28 U.S.C. § 1407 Cited 7,053 times 105 Legal Analyses
Authorizing consolidation of pretrial proceedings for related cases filed in multiple federal districts

In Re: National Collegiate Athletic Association Student-Athlete Concussion Injury Litigation

26 Cited authorities

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”

Holding that it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove disputed Rule 23 requirements by a preponderance of the evidence

Holding that the district court "reasonably presumed that those potential class members still employer by [the defendant employer] might be unwilling to sue individually or join a suit for fear of retaliation at their jobs" such that class certification was proper

Holding that "one named plaintiff with standing . . . is all that is necessary"

Holding that summary judgment was proper where plaintiffs presented no expert evidence to support emotional distress claim based on exposure to chemicals

Finding a settlement inadequate because the vouchers "share some characteristics of coupons, including forced future business with the defendant and . . . the likelihood that the full amount of [Defendant's] gains will not be disgorged."

Holding that notice sent out twelve days before fairness hearing was not a violation of due process

Recognizing that courts "may disregard potentially difficult jurisdictional issues and proceed directly to the merits where there is no practical difference in the outcome."

Authorizing consolidation of pretrial proceedings for related cases filed in multiple federal districts