61 Cited authorities

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor
521 U.S. 591 (1997) Cited 6,952 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
Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo
544 U.S. 336 (2005) Cited 3,550 times 67 Legal Analyses
Holding that the securities statutes have a private of action “not to provide investors with broad insurance against market losses, but to protect them against those economic losses that misrepresentations actually cause”
Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon
457 U.S. 147 (1982) Cited 5,672 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 3,347 times 307 Legal Analyses
Holding that the District Court appropriately certified the class based on the presumption of reliance
Eisen v. Carlisle Jacquelin
417 U.S. 156 (1974) Cited 3,762 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that individual notice to class members identifiable through reasonable efforts is mandatory in (b) actions
Lentell v. Merrill Lynch Co., Inc.
396 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2005) Cited 998 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that to prove loss causation, a plaintiff must allege "that the misstatement or omission concealed something from the market that, when disclosed, negatively affected the value of the security"
Ganino v. Citizens Utilities Co.
228 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2000) Cited 959 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding on the basis of Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99 that "numerical benchmark" are informative but not the "exclusive" test
Szabo v. Bridgeport Machines, Inc.
249 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2001) Cited 886 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"
Keele v. Wexler
149 F.3d 589 (7th Cir. 1998) Cited 664 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding plaintiff had Article III standing where defendant tried to collect an illegal collection fee, even if plaintiff did not pay the fee
Rosario v. Livaditis
963 F.2d 1013 (7th Cir. 1992) Cited 734 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff's claim is typical if it arises from the same event or practice giving rise to the claims of other class members and is based on the same legal theory as the class members
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,923 times 1234 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"
Section 312.32 - IND safety reporting
21 C.F.R. § 312.32 Cited 33 times 7 Legal Analyses
Giving FDA regulatory flexibility in demanding interim safety reports
Section 312.33 - Annual reports
21 C.F.R. § 312.33 Cited 5 times 2 Legal Analyses
Stating that developers, in their annual reports to the FDA, must disclose summary information "showing the most frequent and the most serious" adverse events observed during that year's clinical and nonclinical drug investigations

Supplement 10-Kaufman v. Motorola, #

61 Cited authorities

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

Holding that the securities statutes have a private of action “not to provide investors with broad insurance against market losses, but to protect them against those economic losses that misrepresentations actually cause”

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

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

Holding that to prove loss causation, a plaintiff must allege "that the misstatement or omission concealed something from the market that, when disclosed, negatively affected the value of the security"

Holding on the basis of Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99 that "numerical benchmark" are informative but not the "exclusive" test

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"

Holding plaintiff had Article III standing where defendant tried to collect an illegal collection fee, even if plaintiff did not pay the fee

Holding that a plaintiff's claim is typical if it arises from the same event or practice giving rise to the claims of other class members and is based on the same legal theory as the class members

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"

Giving FDA regulatory flexibility in demanding interim safety reports

Stating that developers, in their annual reports to the FDA, must disclose summary information "showing the most frequent and the most serious" adverse events observed during that year's clinical and nonclinical drug investigations