Medina-Vasquez v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiffs must show “each disputed requirement has been proven by a preponderance of evidence”
• holding that plaintiffs must show “each disputed requirement has been proven by a preponderance of evidence”
• explaining that Comcast “simply” requires that a damages calculation reflect the associated theory of liability, and discussing the “well-established” principle that individualized damages do not automatically defeat Rule 23(b)(3) certification
• explaining that a fail-safe class is “a class defined in terms of the legal injury”
• noting that an individual claims process may be conducted at the liability and damages stage of class action litigation
• noting that it may be impossible to certify a class excluding all uninjured class members given courts’ reluctance to certify a “fail-safe class”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).