green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
10.7 score
“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.”
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2014
2020
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State of North Dakota v. Beverly Heydinger
(2×)
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"
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.
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
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.
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.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Roberts v. C.R. England, Inc.
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."
In re: Nexium Antitrust v.
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"); Kohen, 571…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
AstraZeneca AB v. United Food & Commercial Workers Unions
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…
MICHIGAN
v.
Rayfield CLARY.
v.
Rayfield CLARY.
No. 13–413..
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 24, 2014.
Published
Citer courts: Eighth Circuit (2) · N.D. California (1)
Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Michigan denied.