12 Fair empl.prac.cas. 451, 11 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,741 John Senter, Cross-Appellee v. General Motors Corporation, Cross-Appellant

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• ruling that the plaintiff “must satisfy all four of the prerequisites contained in Rule 23(a) and then demonstrate that the class he seeks to represent falls within one of the subcategories of Rule 23(b)”
• recognizing that “[t]he language of Rule 23(c)(1) is obviously directed to the District Court. It does not impose upon a plaintiff the additional burden of ensuring that the District Court adhere to 23(c)(l)’s directive.”
• recognizing that “[t]he language of Rule 23 (c)(1) is obviously directed to the District Court. It does not impose upon a plaintiff the additional burden of ensuring that the District Court adhere to 23(c)(1)’s directive.”
• recognizing that, although the district court should have ruled on the class certification issue prior to resolving the merits, “the simple fact is that no one was misled as to the class nature of the action”
• finding that “[a] plaintiff must show that the action satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
• finding that “[l]awsuits alleging class-wide discrimination are particularly well suited for 23(b)(2) treatment since the common claim is susceptible to a single proof and subject to a single injunctive remedy.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).