In Re: District of Columbia

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the District’s challenge in this case under Rule 23(b)(2) was “the same as” its argument that the class lacked commonality under Rule 23(a)(2)
• denying petition to permit appeal of class certification, noting that “Rule 23(b)(2) was intended for civil rights cases”
• “[T]he Supreme Court explained in Wal-Mart that ‘for purposes of Rule 23(a)(2) even a single common question will do.’ ” (quoting Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 359, 131 S.Ct. 2541)
• “Indeed, if the [generalized questions] were all the District Court had to say about commonality, we might well agree with the District that class certification was defective in view of Wal-Mart and DL [I].
• “Rule 23(b)(2) was intended for civil rights cases.”
• \ Rule 23(b)(2) was intended for civil rights cases.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).