59 Cited authorities

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
564 U.S. 338 (2011) Cited 6,637 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”
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor
521 U.S. 591 (1997) Cited 6,954 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
General Electric Co. v. Joiner
522 U.S. 136 (1997) Cited 4,862 times 41 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the abuse of discretion standard the appellate court will not reverse unless the ruling is manifestly erroneous
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend
569 U.S. 27 (2013) Cited 2,232 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"
Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.
573 U.S. 258 (2014) Cited 594 times 90 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendants may seek to rebut the Basic presumption at the class certification stage through evidence that the misrepresentation had no price impact
Califano v. Yamasaki
442 U.S. 682 (1979) Cited 1,978 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)"
Italian Cowboy Partners v. Prudential Ins. Co.
341 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. 2011) Cited 710 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that a standard merger clause does not disclaim reliance on promises that led to the formation of that contract
Castano v. the Am. Tobacco Co.
84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996) Cited 1,009 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
Hansberry v. Lee
311 U.S. 32 (1940) Cited 1,487 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs seeking to enforce an agreement cannot represent class members who do not want it enforced
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"
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,931 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"

Troice et al v. Willis of Colorado, Inc. et al

59 Cited authorities

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”

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 under the abuse of discretion standard the appellate court will not reverse unless the ruling is manifestly erroneous

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

Holding that defendants may seek to rebut the Basic presumption at the class certification stage through evidence that the misrepresentation had no price impact

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 that a standard merger clause does not disclaim reliance on promises that led to the formation of that contract

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

Holding that plaintiffs seeking to enforce an agreement cannot represent class members who do not want it enforced

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"

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"