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"

Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court

Holding "the standards for establishing standing under section 17204 and eligibility for restitution under section 17203 are wholly distinct"

In re Tobacco II Cases

Holding class representatives had standing to challenge common marketing of cigarettes despite differences in the advertisements or statements on which class members relied

Armstrong v. Davis

Holding that " Garrett makes clear that . . . there is no barrier to the injunction against Nielson in his official capacity as Secretary of the Board [under the ADA]."

Rosario v. Livaditis

Holding that a plaintiff's claim is typical if it arises from the same event or practice giving rise to the claims of other class members and is based on the same legal theory as the class members

Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Arguing that inadmissible expert testimony cannot be used to meet Rule 23

Morgan v. AT&T Wireless Services Inc.

Holding "a fraudulent business practice is one that is likely to deceive members of the public"

Weinstat v. Dentsply International, Inc.

Holding that "the concept of reliance has been purposefully abandoned" for express warranty claims under the California UCC

In re Vioxx Class Cases

Explaining that restitution is equal to the difference between what the plaintiff paid and the value she received in return

Dukes v. Wal-Mart

Finding those class members "who were no longer Wal-mart employees at the time Plaintiffs' complaint was filed" would not possess standing to pursue injunctive relief as they would not benefit from the injunction

Rule 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions

Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney

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"

Section 355 - New drugs

Granting the court discretion to change the date on which an ANDA may be approved if "either party to the action failed to reasonably cooperate in expediting the action"

Section 321 - Definitions; generally

Defining “new drug”

Section 352 - Misbranded drugs and devices

Setting labeling requirements for drug products

Section 1780 - Action by consumer; remedies; senior citizens or disabled persons; costs and attorney's fees

Granting standing to consumers who have suffered damage "as a result of" a violation

Section 343 - Misbranded food

Setting labeling requirements for food products

Section 101.14 - Health claims: general requirements

Defining a health claim as a "claim made on the label or in labeling of a food . . . that expressly or by implication . . . characterizes the relationship of any substance to a disease or health-related condition"

Section 201.128 - Meaning of "intended uses"

Section 310.528 - Drug products containing active ingredients offered over-the-counter (OTC) for use as an aphrodisiac

In 21 C.F.R. § 310.528, the FDA determined: “Any product that bears labeling claims that it will arouse or increase sexual desire, or that it will improve sexual performance, is an aphrodisiac drug” that must be approved as a new drug before it is marketed.