61 Cited authorities

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    509 U.S. 579 (1993)   Cited 26,077 times   224 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"
  2. Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor

    521 U.S. 591 (1997)   Cited 6,877 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
  3. Comcast Corp. v. Behrend

    569 U.S. 27 (2013)   Cited 2,189 times   231 Legal Analyses
    Holding that at the class certification stage, "any model supporting a plaintiff's damages case must be consistent with its liability case"
  4. Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds

    568 U.S. 455 (2013)   Cited 1,787 times   100 Legal Analyses
    Holding that certain merits questions “should not be resolved in deciding whether to certify a proposed class,” but are “properly addressed at trial or in a ruling on a summary-judgment motion”
  5. Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois

    431 U.S. 720 (1977)   Cited 1,280 times   60 Legal Analyses
    Holding that indirect purchasers cannot recover damages under federal antitrust law
  6. In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation

    618 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2010)   Cited 1,434 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that per se "hub and spoke" theory was not properly pled when complaint detailed specific agreements between multiple insurers and a single broker, but did not allege facts such that the court could infer that the insurers had agreed horizontally to enter into their respective agreements with the broker
  7. Bazemore v. Friday

    478 U.S. 385 (1986)   Cited 632 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding disparate-pay claim timely, despite genesis of disparity in segregation long since abandoned, because "[e]ach week's paycheck that delivers less to a black than to a similarly situated white is [inherently] a wrong actionable under Title VII"
  8. Messner v. Northshore Univ. HealthSystem

    669 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2012)   Cited 774 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove disputed Rule 23 requirements by a preponderance of the evidence
  9. Hanover Shoe v. United Shoe Machinery Corp.

    392 U.S. 481 (1968)   Cited 789 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an antitrust defendant could not argue that a plaintiff who had purchased a product directly from the defendant was not injured because it had passed on the illegal overcharge to its own customers, thus creating a regime under which plaintiffs can arguably recover more than "threefold the damages by him sustained"
  10. Szabo v. Bridgeport Machines, Inc.

    249 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2001)   Cited 884 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "prime occasion for Rule 23(f)" appellate review is when class certification "puts a bet-your-company decision to [defendant's] managers and may induce a substantial settlement even if the [plaintiffs'] position is weak"
  11. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 34,561 times   1230 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"