Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry requires court to consider even those common issues that have been conceded
• holding that district court abused its discretion in finding predominance requirement unsatisfied where defendants conceded “all the major liability issues” and asserted an affirmative defense requiring only de minim-is individualized inquiry
• holding that a district court has discretion to certify a class as to liability
• noting that the advisory committee notes to Rule 23(c)(4)(A) support separate adjudication of liability and damages
• noting that Rule 23(c)(4) may be used “to separate the issue of liability from damages”
• noting that “because the predominance analysis tests whether the class is a sufficiently cohesive unit, all factual or legal issues that are common to the class inform the analysis” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).