Hernández-Stella v. Shinseki

How courts have described this case

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

• \The fact of injury is binary; it is either there or it is not. The extent of injury is another question.\
• \[E]ven an antitrust plaintiff who has successfully proven illegal conduct on the part of the defendant must also show that it was `injured in fact' by the illegality.\
• “However, the presence of individualized defenses, such as mitigation, going only to damages are generally regarded as no barrier to class certification.”
• class of 4 million merchants approved under Rule 23(b)(3)
• distinguishing Matsushita on this ground

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).