United States v. Jue Yet

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a challenge to a specific method of calculating insurance claims was not amenable to class-wide adjudication, because certain plan-holders benefitted financially from the method
• noting that “the law of 47 states ... vary as to their rules governing contract interpretation, especially regarding the use of extrinsic evidence in contract interpretation----”
• holding typicality requirement not satisfied where named plaintiff signed different contract than a large percentage of putative class members
• finding that the proposed named plaintiffs would be inadequate class representatives where the remedies they sought would fail to benefit up to half of the class members, while benefitting the others
• denying class certification for a proposed subclass finding inter alia the relief sought required extensive individualized inquiry to ascertain the class
• finding class certification inappropriate “because the law of 47 states . . . vary as to their rules governing contract interpretation, especially regarding the use of extrinsic evidence in contract interpretation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).