Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts
472 U.S. 797 (1985) Cited 1,788 times 19 Legal AnalysesHolding that “the Due Process Clause of course requires that the named plaintiff at all times adequately represent the interests of the absent class members”
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague
449 U.S. 302 (1981) Cited 549 timesHolding that a Minnesota court may apply Minnesota rule permitting “stacking” of motorcycle insurance policies because plaintiff now lived in Minnesota and her deceased spouse had worked in Minnesota, even though plaintiff had lived in Wisconsin at the time of the accident, and even though decedent had lived in Wisconsin, had taken out the insurance policies in Wisconsin, and had been killed in Wisconsin
Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010) Cited 253 times 20 Legal AnalysesArguing that inadmissible expert testimony cannot be used to meet Rule 23
City of San Jose v. Superior Court
12 Cal.3d 447 (Cal. 1974) Cited 708 timesHolding that government claims procedures are mandatory and failure to file the required claim means the action must be dismissed
In re St. Jude Med., Inc.
425 F.3d 1116 (8th Cir. 2005) Cited 206 times 4 Legal AnalysesReversing choice of law decision where there was "no indication out-of-state parties ‘had any idea that Minnesota law could control’ potential claims when they received their" products
Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc.
91 Cal.App.4th 224 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) Cited 225 timesFinding that application of California law to a class settlement was appropriate when "substantial numbers of class members are located in California"
Norwest Mortgage, Inc. v. Superior Court
72 Cal.App.4th 214 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) Cited 165 timesHolding § 17200 "was not intended to regulate conduct unconnected to California"
In re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litigation
527 F. Supp. 2d 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2007) Cited 113 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that subpoenas served on defendants and grand jury investigation carry no weight in pleading antitrust conspiracy where it is unknown whether investigation will result in indictments or nothing at all, also noting that a decision not to prosecute would not be binding on plaintiffs, and granting leave to amend
Keilholtz v. Lennox Hearth Products Inc.
268 F.R.D. 330 (N.D. Cal. 2010) Cited 104 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that the "ultimate question of whether the [allegedly misleading] information [is] material [is] a common question of fact suitable for treatment in a class action"
Nordberg v. Trilegiant Corp.
445 F. Supp. 2d 1082 (N.D. Cal. 2006) Cited 78 timesHolding plaintiff who did not enter into agreement with defendant failed to allege transaction under CLRA
Section 1792 - Sale accompanied by retail seller's implied warranty that goods merchantable; indemnification of retail seller
Cal. Civ. Code § 1792 Cited 281 times 1 Legal AnalysesProviding implied warranty applies to "every sale of consumer goods that are sold at retail in this state"