United States v. Esso Belgium

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that superiority requirement was not met where class members could “employ tort lawyers, on a contingency basis, to bring individual actions,” and observing that several class members “ha[d] already done so”
• indicating with an “X” those claimants who do not meet the class definition because they received an initial denial within ninety days
• denying certification of a class of residential well owners whose wells were contaminated by MTBE
• refusing to certify class on “general liability,” including “general foreseeability” and whether “warnings were given in general,” prior to individual trials on foreseeability and warning as to individual plaintiffs
• “[I]ssue certification is not appropriate if, despite the presence of a common issue, certification would not make the case more manageable.”
• “[A] requirement that there be an identifiable class has been implied by the courts.’’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).