Jones v. Diamond

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a class may be certified under Federal Rule 23(b)(2) when money damages are requested, so long as the predominant purpose of the suit is for injunctive relief
• explaining that interlocutory appeal of a denial of class certification is permissible only when it effectively denies the injunction
• \Smaller classes are less objectionable where ... the plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief on behalf of future class members as well as past and present members.\
• rev’d on other grounds, Gardner v. Westinghouse Broad. Co., 437 U.S. 478, 479 n.2 (1978)
• “So long as the predominant purpose of the suit is for injunctive relief, the fact that a claim for damages is also included does not vitiate the applicability of 23(b)(2).”
• “So long as the predominant purpose of the suit is for injunctive relief, the fact that a claim for damages is also included does not vitiate the applicability of 23(b)(2).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).