21 Cited authorities

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor
521 U.S. 591 (1997) Cited 7,020 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
Califano v. Yamasaki
442 U.S. 682 (1979) Cited 2,008 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that claimants could bring social security class action "at least so long as the membership of the class is limited to those who meet the requirements of § 205(g)"
American Pipe Construction Co. v. Utah
414 U.S. 538 (1974) Cited 2,133 times 162 Legal Analyses
Holding the commencement of a class action "suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action"
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc.
396 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2005) Cited 763 times 1 Legal Analyses
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"
Doe v. New York City Dept. of Social Services
709 F.2d 782 (2d Cir. 1983) Cited 654 times
Explaining that law of the case doctrine precludes district court from revisiting issues decided on appeal "either expressly or by necessary implication"
Uhl v. Thoroughbred Technology & Telecommunications, Inc.
309 F.3d 978 (7th Cir. 2002) Cited 186 times
Holding that when one claim is justisticiable, "[t]his is enough to permit the court to address the entire suit"
Felzen v. Andreas
134 F.3d 873 (7th Cir. 1998) Cited 157 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the abuse of discretion standard "is not reserved only for purely economic [class action] litigation" and thus "will govern our review of the district court's approval of the [desegregation] settlement proposal."
Armstrong v. Board of School Directors
616 F.2d 305 (7th Cir. 1980) Cited 257 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that notice sent out twelve days before fairness hearing was not a violation of due process
Henderson v. Metropolitan Bank Trust Co.
502 F. Supp. 2d 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) Cited 92 times
Denying a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens where three plaintiffs faced a $ 5 million filing fee to bring a lawsuit in the Philippines
Karvaly v. eBay, Inc.
245 F.R.D. 71 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) Cited 52 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that typicality is generally satisfied "as long as plaintiffs assert . . . that defendants committed the same wrongful acts in the same manner against all members of class"
Rule 6 - Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 Cited 49,437 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 22,480 times 16 Legal Analyses
Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system
Section 506 - Criminal offenses
17 U.S.C. § 506 Cited 274 times 13 Legal Analyses
Criminalizing fraudulent use of copyright notice

The Authors Guild et al v. Google Inc.

21 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 claimants could bring social security class action "at least so long as the membership of the class is limited to those who meet the requirements of § 205(g)"

Holding the commencement of a class action "suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action"

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"

Explaining that law of the case doctrine precludes district court from revisiting issues decided on appeal "either expressly or by necessary implication"

Holding that when one claim is justisticiable, "[t]his is enough to permit the court to address the entire suit"

Holding that the abuse of discretion standard "is not reserved only for purely economic [class action] litigation" and thus "will govern our review of the district court's approval of the [desegregation] settlement proposal."

Holding that notice sent out twelve days before fairness hearing was not a violation of due process

Denying a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens where three plaintiffs faced a $ 5 million filing fee to bring a lawsuit in the Philippines

Recognizing that typicality is generally satisfied "as long as plaintiffs assert . . . that defendants committed the same wrongful acts in the same manner against all members of class"

Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."

Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

Criminalizing fraudulent use of copyright notice