Gina Glazer v. Whirlpool Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that consumers who bought a defective product were injured at the point of sale
• explaining that the various types of front-loading washing machines at issue shared \nearly identical engineering\
• concluding Com-cast has little usefulness where a district court certifies a liability-only class but then discussing Comcast’s effect on damages-class cases
• stating that, “[o]rdinarily,” the “class determination should be predicated on evidence presented by the parties concerning the maintainability of the class action” (citation omitted)
• explaining that district courts most only consider at the class certification stage “those matters relevant to deciding if the prerequisites of Rule 23 are satisfied.”
• explaining that district courts m[u]st only consider at the class certification stage ‘those matters relevant to deciding if the prerequisites of Rule 23 are satisfied.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).