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

Comcast Corp. v. Behrend

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

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”

Shady Grove Orthopedic v. Allstate Ins. Co.

Holding that rules of civil procedure allowing multiple claims to be litigated together "neither change plaintiffs' separate entitlements to relief nor abridge defendants' rights; they alter only how the claims are processed"

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”

Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.

Holding that circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with particularity

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"

Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States

Holding bank jointly and severally liable with its employees, without explanation

Mandarin v. Wildenstein

Holding that plaintiff must allege a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was "false and known to be false"

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

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"

Section 56:8-1 - Applicability of C.56:8-1 et seq

Defining "merchandise" under the PLA as "any objects, wares, goods, commodities, services or anything offered, directly or indirectly to the public for sale"

Section 75-1.1 - Methods of competition, acts and practices regulated; legislative policy

Declaring unlawful "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce"

Section 93A:2 - Unfair practices; legislative intent; rules and regulations

Granting Massachusetts attorney general the authority to make rules and regulations interpreting section 2

Section 56:8-2 - Fraud, etc., in connection with sale or advertisement of merchandise or real estate as unlawful practice

Prohibiting "any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact"

Section 17.46 - Deceptive Trade Practices Unlawful

Providing that a violation occurs based on “ filing suit founded upon ... extensions of credit ... in any county other than in the county in which the defendant resides at the time of the commencement of the action or in the county in which the defendant in fact signed the contract”