Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor
521 U.S. 591 (1997) Cited 6,939 times 69 Legal AnalysesHolding 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 5,666 times 33 Legal AnalysesHolding 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
Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell
473 U.S. 134 (1985) Cited 2,110 times 14 Legal AnalysesHolding that a participant's action filed pursuant to ERISA § 502 must seek remedies that provide a "benefit [to] the plan as a whole"
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.
150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 3,047 times 16 Legal AnalysesHolding 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.
327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 1,920 times 6 Legal AnalysesHolding 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"
Dunleavy v. Nadler
213 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 862 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding an incentive award to the class representatives
Armstrong v. Davis
275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 746 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding 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]."
Marisol A. v. Giuliani
126 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 1997) Cited 739 timesHolding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class but suggesting that prior to trial the district court “ensure that appropriate subclasses are identified”
Keele v. Wexler
149 F.3d 589 (7th Cir. 1998) Cited 664 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding plaintiff had Article III standing where defendant tried to collect an illegal collection fee, even if plaintiff did not pay the fee
Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n
688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) Cited 1,121 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding a settlement must stand or fall in its entirety because a district court cannot "delete, modify or substitute certain provisions"
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,840 times 1232 Legal AnalysesHolding 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 362 - Automatic stay
11 U.S.C. § 362 Cited 29,383 times 174 Legal AnalysesConcluding that cause exists to lift the stay because no bankruptcy purpose would be served by keeping the stay in place
Section 1132 - Civil enforcement
29 U.S.C. § 1132 Cited 26,251 times 169 Legal AnalysesHolding liable "[a]ny administrator" who fails to provide documents in a timely manner
Section 105 - Power of court
11 U.S.C. § 105 Cited 9,410 times 73 Legal AnalysesGranting the court powers as appropriate to carry out the Code
Section 1104 - Fiduciary duties
29 U.S.C. § 1104 Cited 4,822 times 72 Legal AnalysesSpecifying duties of a "fiduciary . . . with respect to a plan"
Section 1109 - Liability for breach of fiduciary duty
29 U.S.C. § 1109 Cited 2,488 times 9 Legal AnalysesBreaching fiduciary "shall be subject to such other equitable or remedial relief as the court may deem appropriate"