United States ex rel. Manzella v. Zimmerman

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that Rule 23(b)(2) serves the important purpose of “ensur[ing] that the claims of unnamed plaintiffs will receive full appellate review” should the named plaintiffs' claims become moot
• noting that under Ex parte Young a state official is a proper defendant if the official “‘has some connection with the enforcement of the [complained of] act’” (quoting 209 U.S. 123, 157 (1908)
• finding a “reasonable expectation” that garnishment proceedings against an indebted widow on a modest income would again occur
• finding it proper to modify a class definition to meet requirements, rather than denying a motion for certification
• rejecting the debtor’s argument that Pennsylvania’s garnishment procedures violated due process because they did not require “a creditor’s affidavit stating that the writ of execution will not cause the attachment of exempt property”
• debtor’s interest in access to bank accounts containing attachment-exempt social security benefits is “very compelling”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).