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

Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds

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”

Eisen v. Carlisle Jacquelin

Holding that individual notice to class members identifiable through reasonable efforts is mandatory in (b) actions

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts

Holding that “the Due Process Clause of course requires that the named plaintiff at all times adequately represent the interests of the absent class members”

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"

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"

Williams v. Gerber Products

Holding that "reasonable consumers expect that the ingredient list ... confirms other representations on the packaging"

Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp.

Holding that the defendants' statements emphasizing superior quality were material because "a reasonable jury could conclude that [the company] publicly released optimistic statements ... when it knew [its product] could not be built reliably"

Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans

Holding that district court abused its discretion in certifying class by relying on uniform exemption policy "to the near exclusion of other factors"

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 17200 - Unfair competition defined

Prohibiting unlawful business practices

Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination

Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely

Section 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers

Holding cellular phones are protected

Section 1750 - Title of act

Section 17500 - Untrue or misleading advertising

Requiring action that originated in California to effect consumers in another state

Section 2301 - Definitions

Including as consumers those entitled to enforce a warranty "under applicable State law"