Supreme Court· 1/9/1990

Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling

Citations

493 U.S. 165
110 S. Ct. 482
107 L. Ed. 2d 480
1989 U.S. LEXIS 5910

How courts have described this case

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

considering § 216(b) in context of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
“A district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to certify a class.” (cleaned up)
“In exercising the discretionary authority to oversee the notice-giving process, courts must be scrupulous to respect judicial neutrality.”
“By monitoring preparation and distribution of the notice, a court can ensure that it is timely, accurate, and informative.”
“Congress’ purpose in authorizing § 216(b) class actions was to avoid multiple lawsuits where numerous employees have allegedly been harmed by a claimed violation or violations of the FLSA by a particular employer.”
collecting cases on two-step process for certifying FLSA actions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Kennedy, Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Rehnquist

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

563 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling
Supreme Court· 1989-03-20

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.