Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes

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”

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

Comcast Corp. v. Behrend

Holding that at the class certification stage, "any model supporting a plaintiff's damages case must be consistent with its liability case"

Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds

Holding that certain merits questions “should not be resolved in deciding whether to certify a proposed class,” but are “properly addressed at trial or in a ruling on a summary-judgment motion”

Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.

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"

Staton v. Boeing Co.

Holding that "named plaintiffs ... are eligible for reasonable incentive payments" in addition to reimbursement "for their substantiated litigation expenses, and identifiable services rendered to the class directly under the supervision of class counsel"

Deposit Guaranty Nat. Bank v. Roper

Holding that denial of class certification is appealable after entry of final judgment

Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co.

Holding a class definition as fatally overbroad where many class members learned that the advertising was misleading before purchase

Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp.

Holding that the defendants' statements emphasizing superior quality were material because "a reasonable jury could conclude that [the company] publicly released optimistic statements ... when it knew [its product] could not be built reliably"

Leyva v. Medline Indus. Inc.

Holding that simple individualized damages calculations do not defeat predominance

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 28 - Persons Before Whom Depositions May Be Taken

Requiring appellant's argument to contain citations to authorities

Section 1

Providing "[a]ll people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights," including the right of "privacy"

Section 632 - Unlawful eavesdropping or recording

Providing for "imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year"

Section 630 - Legislative declarations

Noting that CIPA was passed "to protect the right of privacy of the people of this state"

Section 10 - Omission to specify ground of forfeiture of public office

Amending § 666

Section 637.2 - Action against person who committed violation; injunctive relief

Providing for damages of the greater of $5,000 per violation or three times the plaintiff's actual damages

Section 934.03 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited

Precluding liability for interceptions “when all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent”

Section 632.7 - Unlawful interception or reception and intention recordation of communications transmitted between certain telephones

Section 10-402 - Interception of communications generally; divulging contents of communications; violations of subtitle

Authorizing judges to issue ex parte orders to intercept wire communications