Xavier v. Philip Morris USA Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting plaintiffs’ aseertainability proposal to have potential class members submit affidavits about their smoking histories
• relying in part on our decision in Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154, 191–93 (3d Cir. 2001), which in fact analyzed a proposed class under Rule 23(b)(3) and the superiority requirement
• pre- 28 1 alleged civil rights violations, as Rule 23(b)(2) was designed to do. See Parsons, 754 2 F.3d at 688 (ruling Rule 23(b)(2
• \No reported California decision has held that the purchaser of a consumer product may dodge the privity rule by asserting that he or she is a third-party beneficiary of the distribution agreements linking the manufacturer to the retailer who ultimately made this sale.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).