United States v. Chicago Express, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding this factor to support settlement in a similar situation where pursuit of hundreds of individual claims would result in the defendant’s insolvency
• approving a “limited fund” settlement that, in the opinion of state regulators, reflected “both fairness to the class and [the settling defendant’s] continuing solvency”
• holding this factor to favor approval of “limited fund” settlement when allowing continued litigation of the class action and competing individual actions would result in no benefits or the loss of benefits to the class because of the defendant’s likely resulting insolvency
• noting ALDOI’s contention that failing to approve the \limited fund” settlement before the district court \could require that AL-DOI place [the defendant] under supervision or in receivership”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).