Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Butler, 134 S. Ct. 1277 (2014). · Go Syfert
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Butler, 134 S. Ct. 1277 (2014). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“o matter how individualized the issue of damages may be, determination of damages may be reserved for individual treatment with the question of liability tried as a class action.”
40 citation events (40 in the last 25 years) across 17 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State of North Dakota v. Beverly Heydinger (ca8, 2016-06-15)
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2014 2020 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) State of North Dakota v. Beverly Heydinger
8th Cir. · 2016 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
michigan cannot, without violating the commerce clause ... discriminate against out-of-state renewable energy
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Lilly v. Jamba Juice Co. (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.D. Cal. · 2014 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
o matter how individualized the issue of damages may be, determination of damages may be reserved for individual treatment with the question of liability tried as a class action.
discussed Cited "see" Louisiana Firefighters' Retirement System v. Northern Trust Investments, N.A.
N.D. Ill. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Butler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 727 F.3d 796, 800 (7th Cir.2013), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1277 , 188 L.Ed.2d 298 (2014) (“[A] class action limited to detei-mining liability on a class-wide basis, with separate hearings to determine — if liability is established — the damages of individual class members, or homogeneous groups of class members, is permitted by Rule 23(c)(4) and will often be the sensible way to proceed.”); 2 Messner, 669 F.3d at 815 (7th Cir.2012) (“It is well established that the presence of individualized questions regard ing damages does not prevent …
discussed Cited "see" Scott McMahon v. LVNV Funding, LLC
7th Cir. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
It is well established that, if a case requires determinations of individual issues of causation and damages, a court may “bifurcate the case into a liability phase and a damages phase.” Mullins, 795 F.3d at 671 ; see Butler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 727 F.3d 796, 800 (7th Cir.2013) (“[A] class action limited to determining liability on a class-wide basis, with separate hearings to determine — if liability is established — the damages of individual class members, or homogeneous groups of class members, is permitted by Rule 23(c)(4) and will often be the sensible way to proceed.”), c…
discussed Cited "see" Smith v. Family Video Movie Club, Inc.
N.D. Ill. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Butler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 727 F.3d 796, 800 (7th Cir.2013), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1277 , 188 L.Ed.2d 298 (2014) (“[A] class action limited to determining liability on a class-wide basis, with separate hearings to determine — if liability is established — the damages of individual class members, or homogeneous groups of class members, is permitted by Rule 23(c)(4) and will often be the sensible way to proceed.”); see also Bell v. PNC Bank, Nat.
cited Cited "see" Christopher Ware v. Todd Riley
3rd Cir. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Frescati Shipping Co., Ltd., 718 F.3d 184, 196 (3d Cir.2013), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1279 , 188 L.Ed.2d 298 (2014).
discussed Cited "see" In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Products Liability Litigation
N.D. Ohio · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 361 (the "basic question in the litigation — were the machines defective in permitting mold to accumulate and generate noxious odors? — is common to the entire mold class”). .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Roberts v. C.R. England, Inc.
D. Utah · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence low
Inc., 716 F.3d 510, 514 (9th Cir. 2013) (concluding defendant’s database could be used to calculate damages and related penalties for each individual claim); see also Butler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 727 F.3d 796, 801 (7th Cir. 2013) cert. denied, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1277 , 188 L.Ed.2d 298 (2014) (discussing policy considerations). .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." AstraZeneca AB v. United Food & Commercial Workers Unions
1st Cir. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence low
See In re Urethane, 768 F.3d at 1254 (no abuse of discretion in not decertifying where plaintiffs had evidence of artificially inflated baseline for price negotiations, and defendants alleged plaintiffs “could have avoided the announced price increases, such as [by] negotiating for a lower price or switching to a substitute” (emphasis added)); Messner, 669 F.3d at 825 (once plaintiffs had shown broad antitrust impact, certification could not be denied just because defendants pointed to a class of uninjured members but “[gave] no indication how many such individuals actually exist”); Ko…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY
v.
Larry BUTLER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated.
No. 13–430..
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 24, 2014.
134 S. Ct. 1277

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.