125 Cited authorities

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
509 U.S. 579 (1993) Cited 26,459 times 228 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
564 U.S. 338 (2011) Cited 6,689 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”
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael
526 U.S. 137 (1999) Cited 12,691 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Daubert gatekeeping standard applies not only to "scientific testimony" but also to "all expert testimony"
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor
521 U.S. 591 (1997) Cited 6,994 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 4,892 times 42 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 2,253 times 233 Legal Analyses
Holding that at the class certification stage, "any model supporting a plaintiff's damages case must be consistent with its liability case"
Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon
457 U.S. 147 (1982) Cited 5,700 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
Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp.
527 U.S. 815 (1999) Cited 932 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a fairness hearing under Rule 23(e) is no substitute for rigorous adherence to those provisions of the Rule designed to protect absentees"
Califano v. Yamasaki
442 U.S. 682 (1979) Cited 1,993 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)"
Sosna v. Iowa
419 U.S. 393 (1975) Cited 1,737 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that the requisite Article III "case or controversy" may exist "between a named defendant and a member of the class represented by the named plaintiff, even though the claim of the named plaintiff has become moot"
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 35,153 times 1237 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"
Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses
Fed. R. Evid. 702 Cited 26,851 times 260 Legal Analyses
Adopting the Daubert standard
Rule 401 - Test for Relevant Evidence
Fed. R. Evid. 401 Cited 13,516 times 35 Legal Analyses
Providing that evidence is relevant if " it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action"
Rule 701 - Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses
Fed. R. Evid. 701 Cited 5,758 times 26 Legal Analyses
Requiring lay opinion testimony to be "rationally based on the witness's perception"
Section 12-341.01 - Recovery of attorney fees
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-341.01 Cited 2,620 times 16 Legal Analyses
Permitting an award of reasonable attorney's fees to the successful party in a contested action arising out of express or implied contract
Section 2072 - Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe
28 U.S.C. § 2072 Cited 1,813 times 37 Legal Analyses
Granting the Supreme Court, not the parties, authority to "prescribe general rules of practice and procedure" for federal district court cases
Section 93A:11 - Persons engaged in business; actions for unfair trade practices; class actions; damages; injunction; costs
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A § 11 Cited 1,168 times 8 Legal Analyses
Requiring proof of willful conduct as a predicate to trebling
Section 1345.01 - Consumer sales practices definitions
Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.01 Cited 920 times
Defining "[s]upplier" as a "person engaged in the business of effecting . . . consumer transactions, whether or not the person deals directly with the consumer"
Section 17.45 - Definitions
Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.45 Cited 708 times 2 Legal Analyses
Denying standing to sue under DTPA where corporation has assets of $25 million
Section 1780 - Action by consumer; remedies; senior citizens or disabled persons; costs and attorney's fees
Cal. Civ. Code § 1780 Cited 649 times 3 Legal Analyses
Granting standing to consumers who have suffered damage "as a result of" a violation

Whalen v. Ford Motor Company

125 Cited authorities

Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"

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 the Daubert gatekeeping standard applies not only to "scientific testimony" but also to "all expert testimony"

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 "a fairness hearing under Rule 23(e) is no substitute for rigorous adherence to those provisions of the Rule designed to protect absentees"

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 the requisite Article III "case or controversy" may exist "between a named defendant and a member of the class represented by the named plaintiff, even though the claim of the named plaintiff has become moot"

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"

Adopting the Daubert standard

Providing that evidence is relevant if " it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action"

Requiring lay opinion testimony to be "rationally based on the witness's perception"

Permitting an award of reasonable attorney's fees to the successful party in a contested action arising out of express or implied contract

Granting the Supreme Court, not the parties, authority to "prescribe general rules of practice and procedure" for federal district court cases

Requiring proof of willful conduct as a predicate to trebling

Defining "[s]upplier" as a "person engaged in the business of effecting . . . consumer transactions, whether or not the person deals directly with the consumer"

Denying standing to sue under DTPA where corporation has assets of $25 million

Granting standing to consumers who have suffered damage "as a result of" a violation