United States v. Notto

How courts have described this case

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

• finding class certification to be proper despite the fact that some class members signed papers releasing the defendant from liability
• declining to apply res judicata in second-filed action because class not certified in previous case and both plaintiff and defendant were not parties to the previous action
• no right to jury trial in action to recover plan benefits or to enforce or clarify rights under plan
• “It may be that the best remedy to both the purportedly atypical claims and defenses would be to create sub-classes.”
• “Rule 23(a) simply requires a common question of law or fact.”
• “Finally, Tecumseh argues that the representations of company management on which the plaintiffs rely (most but not all of which were oral) were not uniformly communicated to all class members. All this may be true, but it does not disqualify the class under Rule 23(a

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).