56 Cited authorities

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
564 U.S. 338 (2011) Cited 6,621 times 504 Legal Analyses
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”
Mathews v. Eldridge
424 U.S. 319 (1976) Cited 15,717 times 42 Legal Analyses
Holding that a procedure based on written submissions was adequate because it included safeguards against mistake including that the agency informed the recipient of its tentative assessment and the evidence supporting it and an opportunity was then afforded the recipient to submit additional evidence "enabling him to challenge directly the accuracy of information in his file as well as the correctness of the agency's tentative conclusions"
Teamsters v. United States
431 U.S. 324 (1977) Cited 4,596 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff who did not apply for a position can still make prima facie showing if he can demonstrate his application for the position would have been futile
Tulsa Professional Collection Services v. Pope
485 U.S. 478 (1988) Cited 854 times
Holding "the Due Process Clause requires that [a known creditor] be given notice by mail or other means as certain to ensure actual notice"
In re Tobacco II Cases
46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) Cited 1,202 times 35 Legal Analyses
Holding class representatives had standing to challenge common marketing of cigarettes despite differences in the advertisements or statements on which class members relied
Connecticut v. Doehr
501 U.S. 1 (1991) Cited 468 times
Holding that "complete, physical, or permanent deprivation of real property" is not necessary to trigger due process protections
Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans
571 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 620 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that district court abused its discretion in certifying class by relying on uniform exemption policy "to the near exclusion of other factors"
Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court
34 Cal.4th 319 (Cal. 2004) Cited 514 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that common questions predominated in overtime case brought by chain store managers
Wash. Mut. Bank v. Superior Court of Orange Cty.
24 Cal.4th 906 (Cal. 2001) Cited 561 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a choice of law provision may not be disregarded “merely because it may hinder the prosecution of multi-state or nationwide class action or [exclude] nonresident consumers from a California-based class action”
Hilao v. Estate of Ferdinand Marcos
103 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 1996) Cited 542 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that procedural due process does not require the jury to be instructed that "a reasonable relationship must exist between the amounts of compensatory and exemplary damages"
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,858 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 28 - Persons Before Whom Depositions May Be Taken
Fed. R. Civ. P. 28 Cited 18,304 times 7 Legal Analyses
Requiring appellant's argument to contain citations to authorities
Section 13
Cal. Const. art. VI § 13 Cited 4,511 times
Requiring a "miscarriage of justice"
Section 11040 - Order Regulating Wages, Hours, and Working Conditions in Professional, Technical, Clerical, Mechanical, and Similar Occupations
Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 11040 Cited 340 times 16 Legal Analyses
Adopting this provision of the former CFR

DURAN v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

56 Cited authorities

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”

Holding that a plaintiff who did not apply for a position can still make prima facie showing if he can demonstrate his application for the position would have been futile

Holding "the Due Process Clause requires that [a known creditor] be given notice by mail or other means as certain to ensure actual notice"

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

Holding that "complete, physical, or permanent deprivation of real property" is not necessary to trigger due process protections

Holding that district court abused its discretion in certifying class by relying on uniform exemption policy "to the near exclusion of other factors"

Holding that common questions predominated in overtime case brought by chain store managers

Holding that a choice of law provision may not be disregarded “merely because it may hinder the prosecution of multi-state or nationwide class action or [exclude] nonresident consumers from a California-based class action”

Holding that procedural due process does not require the jury to be instructed that "a reasonable relationship must exist between the amounts of compensatory and exemplary damages"

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"

Requiring appellant's argument to contain citations to authorities

Requiring a "miscarriage of justice"

Adopting this provision of the former CFR