Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor

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

Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp.

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"

Prado-Steiman v. Bush

Adopting a balancing approach with guidance from Blair and Mowbray and adding two additional "guideposts": the nature and status of the litigation and the likelihood that future events would make immediate review more or less appropriate

Waste Mgmt. Holdings v. Mowbray

Holding that although the existence of an affirmative statute of limitations defense should be considered in assessing class certification, " the mere fact that such concerns may arise and may affect different class members differently does not compel a finding that individual issues predominate over common ones. As long as a sufficient constellation of common issues binds class members together, variations in the sources and application of statutes of limitations will not automatically foreclose class certification under Rule 23(b)."

Payton v. County of Kane

Holding plaintiffs who suffered injury in two Illinois counties may have standing to represent a class suing nineteen Illinois counties if plaintiffs fulfill all the requirements of Rule 23

James v. City of Dall.

Seeking removal of liens and the clearing of titles

Clark v. McDonald's Corp.

Holding that "deterrence from visiting a place of public accommodation known to be out-of-compliance with the ADA can constitute an actual and present injury as surely as tomorrow's visit to the same location can constitute a threatened and imminent one."

Griffin v. Dugger

Holding that "each claim must be analyzed separately, and a claim cannot be asserted on behalf of a class unless at least one named plaintiff has suffered the injury that gives rise to that claim"

In re Integra Realty Resources, Inc.

Holding in that case that mailing notice to “all class members whose names were then known or could be identified through reasonable effort” satisfied due process

Ford v. Nylcare Health Plans of Gulf Coast

Holding that if the court raises the issue of standing sua sponte without notice of the parties, "the plaintiff is deprived of a meaningful opportunity to address the court's concerns by identifying record evidence to satisfy the standing requirements."

Section 1915 - Proceedings in forma pauperis

Holding that, after a plaintiff is granted in forma pauperis status, "the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted"

Section 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs

Holding district court has jurisdiction over action between diverse citizens "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000"

Rule 23 - Class Actions

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"

Rule 24 - Proceeding in Forma Pauperis

Recognizing that "[t]he simple and expeditious motion procedure" set forth in Fed.R.App.P. 24, "rather than an appeal from . . . the certification of lack of good faith, [is] the proper procedure for calling in question the correctness of the action of the district court"

Section 1715 - Notifications to appropriate Federal and State officials

Providing list of information required to be included with the CAFA notice

Form 7 - Declaration of Inmate Filing