United States v. Xerox Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, to conditionally certify a class for settlement purposes, court must ensure that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b) are met
• holding that strictures of Rule 23 should not be loosened because of settlement
• holding that class members who had conducted transactions based upon allegedly improper and fraudulent tax counseling had standing even though many were likely “insulated from exposure” to penalties by the statute of limitations
• ruling that the “filing of suit as a class action does not relax [the] jurisdictional requirement [and] no class may be certified that contains members lacking Article III standing”
• holding that class members who had conducted transactions based upon allegedly improper and fraudulent tax counseling had standing even though many were likely “insulated from exposure” to penalties by the statute of limitations
• noting that Article III standing does “not require that each member of a class submit evidence of personal standing”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).