56 Cited authorities

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
564 U.S. 338 (2011) Cited 6,932 times 508 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”
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend
569 U.S. 27 (2013) Cited 2,334 times 235 Legal Analyses
Holding that at the class certification stage, "any model supporting a plaintiff's damages case must be consistent with its liability case"
Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds
568 U.S. 455 (2013) Cited 1,917 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”
Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon
457 U.S. 147 (1982) Cited 5,797 times 33 Legal Analyses
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
Basic Inc. v. Levinson
485 U.S. 224 (1988) Cited 3,413 times 313 Legal Analyses
Holding that the District Court appropriately certified the class based on the presumption of reliance
Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.
552 U.S. 148 (2008) Cited 1,216 times 80 Legal Analyses
Holding that the fraud-on-the-market presumption did not apply because business partners' "deceptive acts were not communicated to the public"
Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co.
563 U.S. 804 (2011) Cited 786 times 54 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff need not prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification
Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.
573 U.S. 258 (2014) Cited 652 times 93 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendants may seek to rebut the Basic presumption at the class certification stage through evidence that the misrepresentation had no price impact
Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States
406 U.S. 128 (1972) Cited 1,642 times 35 Legal Analyses
Holding bank jointly and severally liable with its employees, without explanation
Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green
430 U.S. 462 (1977) Cited 1,080 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Securities Exchange Act is limited in scope to its textual provisions and does not conflict with state law regarding corporate misconduct, particularly corporate mismanagement
Rule 54 - Judgment; Costs
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 Cited 42,791 times 143 Legal Analyses
Holding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 36,157 times 1252 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"

Steginsky v. Xcelera Inc. et al

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 at the class certification stage, "any model supporting a plaintiff's damages case must be consistent with its liability case"

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”

Holding that the District Court appropriately certified the class based on the presumption of reliance

Holding that the fraud-on-the-market presumption did not apply because business partners' "deceptive acts were not communicated to the public"

Holding that a plaintiff need not prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification

Holding that defendants may seek to rebut the Basic presumption at the class certification stage through evidence that the misrepresentation had no price impact

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

Holding that the Securities Exchange Act is limited in scope to its textual provisions and does not conflict with state law regarding corporate misconduct, particularly corporate mismanagement

Holding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"

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"