Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes

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”

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor

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

Comcast Corp. v. Behrend

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

Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon

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

Hanover Shoe v. United Shoe Machinery Corp.

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"

Nelson v. Adams USA, Inc.

Holding amendment did not relate back where plaintiff knew of the party's "role and existence" and added the new party only after learning the named defendant could not satisfy the judgment

Eagle Industries v. DeVilbiss Health Care

Holding that a contract provision was ambiguous, reversing summary judgment, and remanding for a consideration of extrinsic evidence by the Court of Chancery as factfinder

Citadel Holding Corp. v. Roven

Holding that a corporation was not required to advance unreasonable expenses when the indemnification clause in the contract and Delaware law both have a reasonableness standard for indemnification expenses

Marlo v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.

Holding that "as to the class-decertification issue," the party seeking certification continues to bear the burden of showing compliance with Rule 23

Deiter v. Microsoft Corp.

Stating that an antitrust injury is an element of an antitrust plaintiff's prima facie case

Section 278 - Continuation of corporation after dissolution for purposes of suit and winding up affairs

Section 510 - Failure to pay tax or file a complete annual report for 1 year; charter void; extension of time