28 Cited authorities

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts
472 U.S. 797 (1985) Cited 1,791 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the Due Process Clause of course requires that the named plaintiff at all times adequately represent the interests of the absent class members”
Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp.
527 U.S. 815 (1999) Cited 932 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a fairness hearing under Rule 23(e) is no substitute for rigorous adherence to those provisions of the Rule designed to protect absentees"
Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino
186 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 1999) Cited 392 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
Berger v. Compaq Comput. Corp.
257 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 2001) Cited 272 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that district court erred by shifting burden to defendants to show that class representatives were inadequate
Lightbourn v. County of El Paso
118 F.3d 421 (5th Cir. 1997) Cited 282 times
Finding plaintiffs failed to state § 504 claim against the Secretary of the State of Texas when they failed to argue or present evidence that secretary received federal financial assistance; evidence that state received financial assistance was not sufficient to establish jurisdiction over secretary
Zeidman v. J. Ray McDermott Co., Inc.
651 F.2d 1030 (5th Cir. 1981) Cited 422 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he controversy involved in this case is undoubtedly still live" in a putative securities class action because "[t]he classes which the plaintiffs seek to represent contain at least some number of persons who sold securities during the periods at issue"
Forbush v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc.
994 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir. 1993) Cited 257 times
Holding that Rule 23's commonality requirement is satisfied where there is "at least one" common question of law or fact
Phillips v. Joint Legislative Comm.
637 F.2d 1014 (5th Cir. 1981) Cited 306 times
Holding recusal not necessary despite improper remarks to parties in previous cases
Stirman v. Exxon Corp.
280 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 2002) Cited 143 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding class representative inadequate when she had already agreed to abide by Texas statute of limitations even though this might cause other class members who might live in other jurisdictions with longer statutes of limitations to lose some of their claims
Feder v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.
429 F.3d 125 (5th Cir. 2005) Cited 126 times
Holding that “the purchase of a company's stock after disclosure of alleged fraud [does not] necessarily present a unique defense against that purchaser such that Rule 23 typicality is categorically precluded”
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 35,111 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"
Section 1404 - Change of venue
28 U.S.C. § 1404 Cited 28,511 times 185 Legal Analyses
Granting Class Plaintiffs' motion to transfer action in order to "facilitate a unified settlement approval process together with the class action cases in" In re Amex ASR
Section 77k - Civil liabilities on account of false registration statement
15 U.S.C. § 77k Cited 2,114 times 86 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

In re: Superior Offshore International, Inc. Securities Litigation

28 Cited authorities

Holding that “the Due Process Clause of course requires that the named plaintiff at all times adequately represent the interests of the absent class members”

Holding that "a fairness hearing under Rule 23(e) is no substitute for rigorous adherence to those provisions of the Rule designed to protect absentees"

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 district court erred by shifting burden to defendants to show that class representatives were inadequate

Holding that "[t]he controversy involved in this case is undoubtedly still live" in a putative securities class action because "[t]he classes which the plaintiffs seek to represent contain at least some number of persons who sold securities during the periods at issue"

Holding that Rule 23's commonality requirement is satisfied where there is "at least one" common question of law or fact

Holding recusal not necessary despite improper remarks to parties in previous cases

Finding class representative inadequate when she had already agreed to abide by Texas statute of limitations even though this might cause other class members who might live in other jurisdictions with longer statutes of limitations to lose some of their claims

Holding that “the purchase of a company's stock after disclosure of alleged fraud [does not] necessarily present a unique defense against that purchaser such that Rule 23 typicality is categorically precluded”

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"

Granting Class Plaintiffs' motion to transfer action in order to "facilitate a unified settlement approval process together with the class action cases in" In re Amex ASR

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