92 Cited authorities

  1. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes

    564 U.S. 338 (2011)   Cited 6,647 times   505 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”
  2. Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor

    521 U.S. 591 (1997)   Cited 6,963 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
  3. Comcast Corp. v. Behrend

    569 U.S. 27 (2013)   Cited 2,236 times   232 Legal Analyses
    Holding that at the class certification stage, "any model supporting a plaintiff's damages case must be consistent with its liability case"
  4. Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds

    568 U.S. 455 (2013)   Cited 1,820 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”
  5. Test Masters Educ. Serv., Inc. v. Singh

    428 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2005)   Cited 796 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Singh was precluded from re-litigating issue of secondary meaning
  6. In re Gen. Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank

    55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir. 1995)   Cited 1,139 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that nothing in Rule 23 "can be read to authorize separate, liberalized criteria for settlement classes"
  7. Castano v. the Am. Tobacco Co.

    84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996)   Cited 1,013 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court had not engaged in a rigorous analysis of predominance—that is, whether a Rule 23(b) class type was appropriate
  8. Tooke v. City of Mexia

    197 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. 2006)   Cited 681 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that lost profits from additional work “are consequential damages excluded from recovery under the statute”
  9. Baffa v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Secs. Corp.

    222 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 686 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "class certification is inappropriate where a putative class representative is subject to unique defenses which threaten to become the focus of the litigation"
  10. Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp.

    151 F.3d 402 (5th Cir. 1998)   Cited 694 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that certification under Rule 23(b) was not appropriate because "plaintiffs' claims for compensatory and punitive damages must therefore focus almost entirely on facts and issues specific to individuals rather than the class as a whole"
  11. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,113 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system
  12. Section 552 - Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings

    5 U.S.C. § 552   Cited 12,182 times   556 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Court's entering of a “Stipulation and Order” approving the parties' terms of dismissal did not amount to a “court-ordered consent decree” that would render the plaintiff the prevailing party
  13. Section 2072 - Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe

    28 U.S.C. § 2072   Cited 1,805 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Granting the Supreme Court, not the parties, authority to "prescribe general rules of practice and procedure" for federal district court cases
  14. Section 33.003 - Determination of Percentage of Responsibility

    Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.003   Cited 258 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Determining percentage of responsibility
  15. Section 33.011 - Definitions

    Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.011   Cited 205 times
    Defining a "responsible third party" as "any person who is alleged to have caused or contributed to causing in any way the harm for which recovery of damages is sought. . . ."
  16. Section 33.002 - Applicability

    Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.002   Cited 178 times
    Applying only to a "cause of action based on tort in which a defendant, settling person, or responsible third party is found responsible for a percentage of the harm for which relief is sought" or an action brought under the DTPA "in which a defendant, settling person, or responsible third party is found responsible for a percentage of the harm for which relief is sought"
  17. Section 581-33 - [Repealed]

    Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 581-33   Cited 143 times
    Providing "[n]o person may sue" under the TSA "more than five years after the sale" of the securities at issue
  18. Section 78dd-1 - Prohibited foreign trade practices by issuers

    15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1   Cited 141 times   118 Legal Analyses
    Making it unlawful for any securities issuer or its officer to bribe a foreign official
  19. Section 33.013 - Amount of Liability

    Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.013   Cited 69 times
    Providing that when percentage of causation attributable to defendant is greater than 50%, defendant is jointly and severally liable for all compensatory damages
  20. Section 139.7 - Sale of Securities to Nonresidents

    7 Tex. Admin. Code § 139.7   Cited 2 times

    (a) The offer and sale of securities by an issuer or its selling agent to a non-Texas resident not present in Texas when the offer is made is exempt from the securities registration provisions of the Securities Act. (The Securities Act provides exemptions from the securities registration requirements which might be available to some issuers or selling agents offering or selling to non-Texas residents present in the state.) (b) An issuer or selling agent who makes an offer or sale from Texas, by any