In Re Vioxx Class Cases

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that while class-wide UCL restitution does not require “individualized proof of injury,” it must be susceptible to calculation on a class-wide basis
• explaining that restitution is equal to the difference between what the plaintiff paid and the value she received in return
• affirming that materiality was not subject to common proof where the inquiry turned on individual patient’s specific medical needs and history
• explaining that restitution is equal to the 14 difference between what the plaintiff paid and the value the plaintiff received in return
• holding that the plaintiffs proposed drug comparator was invalid
• stating that “if the issue of materiality . . . is a matter that would vary from consumer to consumer, the issue is not subject to common proof, and the action is properly not certified as a class action”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).