Dianne Castano v. The American Tobacco Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “a district court must consider how variations in state law affect predominance and superiority”
• concluding that \a fraud class action cannot be certi- fied when individual reliance will be an issue\
• concluding that court abused its discretion in certifying class where plaintiffs had failed to properly address variations in state law such that conclusion of predominance was based on speculation
• concluding that court abused its discretion in certifying class where plaintiffs had failed to properly address variations in state law such that conclusion of predominance was based on speculation
• holding that state law variations in a multi-state class action swamp any common issues and defeat predominance
• holding that the district court had not engaged in a rigorous analysis of predominance—that is, whether a Rule 23(b)(3) class type was appropriate

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).