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

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

Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.

Holding that " common nucleus of facts and potential legal remedies dominate[d]" over "idiosyncratic differences between state consumer protection laws" where a nationwide class of minivan buyers’ claims turned on "questions of [the manufacturer’s] prior knowledge of the [vehicle’s] deficiency, the design defect, and a damages remedy"

East Texas Motor Freight v. Rodriguez

Holding that plaintiffs who lacked qualifications to be hired as drivers suffered no injury from alleged discriminatory practices and therefore lacked standing to represent class of persons who did suffer injury

Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.

Holding that for an act to be "unfair," it must "threaten" a violation of law or "violate the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law"

Staton v. Boeing Co.

Holding that "named plaintiffs ... are eligible for reasonable incentive payments" in addition to reimbursement "for their substantiated litigation expenses, and identifiable services rendered to the class directly under the supervision of class counsel"

Deposit Guaranty Nat. Bank v. Roper

Holding that denial of class certification is appealable after entry of final judgment

In re Tobacco II Cases

Holding class representatives had standing to challenge common marketing of cigarettes despite differences in the advertisements or statements on which class members relied

Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc.

Holding that a putative class did not meet the requirements of Rule 23(b) before discussing the elements of Rule 23.

Rule 23 - Class Actions

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"

Section 1671 - Validity of liquidated damages provision

Invalidating unreasonable liquidated damages

Section 1

Limiting the permissible scope of loan contract negotiations by prohibiting, subject to penalty, negotiation for usurious interest rates

Section 1916 - Rate of interest deemed annual rate