Questions Related to the Potential Rescheduling of Marijuana

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Rule 23(b) “does not require a plaintiff seeking class certification to prove that each element of her claim is susceptible to classwide proof”
• holding that criminal defendants have two years from the issuance of the mandate in Callaway to file a Hale post-conviction claim
• holding that “under the plain language of Rule 23(b)(3), plaintiffs are not required to prove materiality at the class-certification stage.”
• holding that courts may consider “[m]erits questions ... only to the extent[ ]that they are relevant to determining whether the Rule 23 prerequisites for class certification are satisfied”
• holding that predominance “requires a showing that questions common to the class predominate, not that those questions will be answered, on the merits, in favor of the class”
• holding that certain merits questions “should not be resolved in deciding whether to certify a proposed class,” but are “properly addressed at trial or in a ruling on a summary-judgment motion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).