Larry Butler v. Sears, Roebuck & Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that class should be certified because there was “a single, central, common issue of liability: whether the [defendant’s] washing machine was defective”
• holding, upon the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari, vacatur, and remand in light of Comcast, that “the fact that damages are not identical across all class members should not preclude class certification”
• explaining that predominance is not determined “simply by counting noses: that is, determining whether there are more common issues or more individual issues”
• explaining that district courts may address complications arising from variances in state laws through the creation of subclasses
• explaining that district courts may address complications arising from variances in state laws through the creation of subclasses
• explaining that the need for individualized damages inquiries does not preclude class certification if there are common questions of liability

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).