521 U.S. 591 (1997) Cited 6,995 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
Holding that decision to grant or reject objector's motion for discovery regarding fairness of settlement depended on "whether or not the District Court had before it sufficient facts intelligently to approve the settlement offer"
Holding that TPPs had standing to assert antitrust claims because they suffered “direct and independent harm” as a result of paying supracompetitive prices for the defendant's drug regardless of any injury suffered by the consumer plaintiffs
Holding that though plaintiffs complained of defendants’ conduct in creating a default judgment mill that would end in a state-court judgment, that judgment was a mere ratification
Holding that a "clearer showing of a settlement's fairness, reasonableness and adequacy" is required for a settlement reached "prior to class certification," though "we have long recognized that a district court's disposition of a proposed class action settlement should be accorded considerable deference"
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 35,160 times 1237 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"