D.C. Circuit· 10/29/2002

In re: Veneman, Ann

Citations

309 F.3d 789
353 U.S. App. D.C. 398
53 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1486
2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 22539
2002 WL 31414127

How courts have described this case

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

noting that a fundamental issue of law unlikely to evade end-of-case review could nonetheless be appropriate for 23(f) review in “special circumstances”
denying a 23(f) petition “because the critical questions required to resolve it are entirely unbriefed”
denying interlocutory, review of an unsettled, fundamental, and important question of class action law that was not “likely to evade end-of-the-case review”
denying interlocutory review of an unsettled, fundamental, and important question of class action law that was not “likely to evade end-of-the-case review”
declining to exercise 23(f) discretion because the important, unresolved issues were entirely unbriefed
“due process requires that putative class members receive notice and an opportunity to opt out”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Tatel, Garland, Williams

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.