47 Cited authorities

Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo
544 U.S. 336 (2005) Cited 3,547 times 67 Legal Analyses
Holding that the securities statutes have a private of action “not to provide investors with broad insurance against market losses, but to protect them against those economic losses that misrepresentations actually cause”
Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon
457 U.S. 147 (1982) Cited 5,668 times 33 Legal Analyses
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
Basic Inc. v. Levinson
485 U.S. 224 (1988) Cited 3,345 times 307 Legal Analyses
Holding that the District Court appropriately certified the class based on the presumption of reliance
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.
150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 3,050 times 16 Legal Analyses
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"
Deposit Guaranty Nat. Bank v. Roper
445 U.S. 326 (1980) Cited 986 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding that denial of class certification is appealable after entry of final judgment
Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Epstein
516 U.S. 367 (1996) Cited 527 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Exchange Act's exclusive-jurisdiction provision sought "to achieve greater uniformity of construction and more effective and expert application of that law"
J. I. Case Co. v. Borak
377 U.S. 426 (1964) Cited 1,102 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that “a right of action [under Section 14(a) ] exists as to both derivative and direct causes”
Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp.
976 F.2d 497 (9th Cir. 1992) Cited 1,613 times 1 Legal Analyses
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"
In re Am. Med. Sys., Inc.
75 F.3d 1069 (6th Cir. 1996) Cited 1,051 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that design and manufacturing differences across ten different models of the same product meant potentially varying results on strict liability, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, and failure to warn claims
Armstrong v. Davis
275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 747 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that " Garrett makes clear that . . . there is no barrier to the injunction against Nielson in his official capacity as Secretary of the Board [under the ADA]."
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,896 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"
Section 78j - Manipulative and deceptive devices
15 U.S.C. § 78j Cited 12,500 times 165 Legal Analyses
Granting SEC power to establish rules to further statute forbidding manipulative or deceptive devices in connection with purchase or sale of securities
Section 78u-4 - Private securities litigation
15 U.S.C. § 78u-4 Cited 7,460 times 48 Legal Analyses
Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party
Section 240.10b-5 - Employment of manipulative and deceptive devices
17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 Cited 9,193 times 133 Legal Analyses
Holding liable any person who "make any untrue statement of material fact"

Weinrib v. The PMI Group, Inc. et al

47 Cited authorities

Holding that the securities statutes have a private of action “not to provide investors with broad insurance against market losses, but to protect them against those economic losses that misrepresentations actually cause”

Holding that the District Court appropriately certified the class based on the presumption of reliance

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

Holding that the Exchange Act's exclusive-jurisdiction provision sought "to achieve greater uniformity of construction and more effective and expert application of that law"

Holding that “a right of action [under Section 14(a) ] exists as to both derivative and direct causes”

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"

Holding that design and manufacturing differences across ten different models of the same product meant potentially varying results on strict liability, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, and failure to warn claims

Holding that " Garrett makes clear that . . . there is no barrier to the injunction against Nielson in his official capacity as Secretary of the Board [under the ADA]."

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"

Granting SEC power to establish rules to further statute forbidding manipulative or deceptive devices in connection with purchase or sale of securities

Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party

Holding liable any person who "make any untrue statement of material fact"