77 Cited authorities

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor
521 U.S. 591 (1997) Cited 6,936 times 69 Legal Analyses
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
Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon
457 U.S. 147 (1982) Cited 5,664 times 33 Legal Analyses
Holding that named plaintiff must prove “much more than the validity of his own claim”; the individual plaintiff must show that “the individual's claim and the class claims will share common questions of law or fact and that the individual's claim will be typical of the class claims,” explicitly referencing the “commonality” and “typicality” requirements of Rule 23
O'Shea v. Littleton
414 U.S. 488 (1974) Cited 4,076 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[p]ast exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief ... if unaccompanied by any continuing, present adverse effects"
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts
472 U.S. 797 (1985) Cited 1,781 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”
Goshen v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York
98 N.Y.2d 314 (N.Y. 2002) Cited 3,361 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that disclaimers "do not establish a defense as a matter of law"
Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Co.
313 U.S. 487 (1941) Cited 10,466 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that Erie doctrine applies to conflict-of-law rules
Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc.
253 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 1,216 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that a putative class did not meet the requirements of Rule 23(b) before discussing the elements of Rule 23.
Castano v. the Am. Tobacco Co.
84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996) Cited 1,009 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court had not engaged in a rigorous analysis of predominance—that is, whether a Rule 23(b) class type was appropriate
Robidoux v. Celani
987 F.2d 931 (2d Cir. 1993) Cited 873 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that recipients of public assistance challenging delays by the Vermont Department of Social Welfare could proceed under the "inherently transitory" exception in part because "the Department will almost always be able to process a delayed application before a plaintiff can obtain relief through litigation"
Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp.
151 F.3d 402 (5th Cir. 1998) Cited 694 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that certification under Rule 23(b) was not appropriate because "plaintiffs' claims for compensatory and punitive damages must therefore focus almost entirely on facts and issues specific to individuals rather than the class as a whole"
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,823 times 1232 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"
Rule 407 - Subsequent Remedial Measures
Fed. R. Evid. 407 Cited 1,395 times 13 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting evidence of subsequent remedial measures to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a product or design defect, or a need for a warning or instruction, but not for other purposes
Section 2307.71 - Product liability definitions
Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.71 Cited 372 times 4 Legal Analyses
Abrogating the result in Carrel as of 7 April 2005
Section 11-1-65 - Punitive damages; limitations
Miss. Code § 11-1-65 Cited 371 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that punitive damages are proper only in cases of "actual malice, gross negligence which evidences a willful, wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others, or ... actual fraud."
Section 13-21-102 - Exemplary damages
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102 Cited 342 times 2 Legal Analyses
Providing that "the court may increase any award of exemplary damages, to a sum not to exceed three times the amount of actual damages, if it is shown that ... [t]he defendant has continued the behavior or repeated the action which is the subject of the claim against the defendant in a willful and wanton manner, either against the plaintiff or another person or persons, during the pendency of the case."
Section 9:2800.52 - Scope of this Chapter
La. Stat. tit. 9 § 2800.52 Cited 258 times 1 Legal Analyses
Noting that "`fault' within the meaning of Civil Code Article 2315" triggers LPLA liability
Section 501.203 - Definitions
Fla. Stat. § 501.203 Cited 256 times 7 Legal Analyses
Basing a violation of FDUTPA on, among other things, "[t]he standards of unfairness and deception set forth and interpreted by the Federal Trade Commission"
Section 549.20 - PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Minn. Stat. § 549.20 Cited 249 times
Permitting punitive damages upon clear and convincing evidence that defendant acted with "deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others"
Section 42.005 - Exemplary and punitive damages: In general; limitations on amount of award; determination in subsequent proceeding
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005 Cited 246 times 1 Legal Analyses
Permitting punitive damages "in addition to the compensatory damages"
Section 29-28-102 - Chapter definitions
Tenn. Code § 29-28-102 Cited 221 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing "actions based upon ... breach of or failure to discharge a duty to warn or instruct, whether negligent, or innocent" as "[p]roduct liability action"

Patton et al v. Topps Meat Company, LLC et al

77 Cited authorities

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

Holding that "[p]ast exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief ... if unaccompanied by any continuing, present adverse effects"

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 disclaimers "do not establish a defense as a matter of law"

Holding that Erie doctrine applies to conflict-of-law rules

Holding that a putative class did not meet the requirements of Rule 23(b) before discussing the elements of Rule 23.

Holding that the district court had not engaged in a rigorous analysis of predominance—that is, whether a Rule 23(b) class type was appropriate

Holding that certification under Rule 23(b) was not appropriate because "plaintiffs' claims for compensatory and punitive damages must therefore focus almost entirely on facts and issues specific to individuals rather than the class as a whole"

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"

Prohibiting evidence of subsequent remedial measures to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a product or design defect, or a need for a warning or instruction, but not for other purposes

Abrogating the result in Carrel as of 7 April 2005

Recognizing that punitive damages are proper only in cases of "actual malice, gross negligence which evidences a willful, wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others, or ... actual fraud."

Noting that "`fault' within the meaning of Civil Code Article 2315" triggers LPLA liability

Basing a violation of FDUTPA on, among other things, "[t]he standards of unfairness and deception set forth and interpreted by the Federal Trade Commission"

Permitting punitive damages upon clear and convincing evidence that defendant acted with "deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others"

Permitting punitive damages "in addition to the compensatory damages"

Recognizing "actions based upon ... breach of or failure to discharge a duty to warn or instruct, whether negligent, or innocent" as "[p]roduct liability action"