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

Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon

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

Eisen v. Carlisle Jacquelin

Holding that individual notice to class members identifiable through reasonable efforts is mandatory in (b) actions

American Pipe Construction Co. v. Utah

Holding the commencement of a class action "suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action"

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"

Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States

Holding bank jointly and severally liable with its employees, without explanation

Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co.

Holding that remand for defective diversity allegations was unreviewable even though the removing defendant "could potentially have cured its defective allegations regarding citizenship by amending its notice of removal"

Lazar v. Superior Court

Holding that justifiable reliance is a required element of a fraud claim

In re Prudential Insurance Company

Holding the district court acted well within its discretion in denying an objector's request for discovery where the objector was able to present his arguments to the court during the fairness hearing and where the court found the objector "had ample opportunity to avail himself of the substantial discovery provided to Lead Counsel but failed to do so, and that additional discovery was unnecessary because [the objector] focused primarily on legal issues"

Williams v. Gerber Products

Holding that "reasonable consumers expect that the ingredient list ... confirms other representations on the packaging"

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 17200 - Unfair competition defined

Prohibiting unlawful business practices

Section 1601 - Congressional findings and declaration of purpose

Explaining that TILA's disclosure requirements exist “so that the consumer will be able to compare more readily the various credit terms available to him and avoid the uninformed use of credit”

Section 1640 - Civil liability

Holding "any creditor who fails to comply" liable, with creditors defined within § 1602(g) as persons

Section 330 - Definition

Defining "concealment" as "[n]eglect to communicate that which a party knows, and ought to communicate"

Section 2889.5 - Change in provider of telephone service for which competition authorized

Section 226.17 - General disclosure requirements

Requiring that consumer receive a copy of TILA disclosures

Section 226.18 - Content of disclosures

Listing the required disclosures for variable rate

Section 226.19 - Certain mortgage and variable-rate transactions

Requiring that disclosures in mortgage transactions be delivered "not later than the third business day after the creditor receives the consumer's written application"