Search for: ""Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes" OR "564 U.S. 338"" Results 21 - 40 of 53
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Apr 2016, 9:10 am by Greg Mersol
The Court emphasized that it was not altering the holding in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
3 May 2017, 5:27 pm by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  Noting that Bass Pro’s argument appeared to implicate due process concerns under the Seventh Amendment, the Panel held that Bass Pro’s reliance on Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Aug 2017, 9:09 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), some members of the putative class in that case filed new, regional class actions against Wal-Mart, including Love v. [read post]
16 Jan 2020, 8:09 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  The Court concluded that Plaintiff failed to sustain her burden for class certification under the standards articulated in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Aug 2016, 10:01 pm by Barry Barnett
Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), and Comcast Corp. v. [read post]
16 Jan 2020, 8:09 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  The Court concluded that Plaintiff failed to sustain her burden for class certification under the standards articulated in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Oct 2020, 9:09 am by Patrick T. Ryan
It then rejected the argument that nothing in Rule 23 prohibits a negotiation class as failing to recognize the Supreme Court’s guidance in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Mar 2016, 4:04 pm by Thomas Kaufman and Melissa Smith
  Justice Kennedy further explained that this ability for individuals to rely on the statistical evidence in their individual cases distinguished this case from Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Mar 2016, 11:57 am by Patrick T. Ryan
  By contrast, the Court said that its disapproval of the plaintiffs’ attempt to use sampling and statistical evidence in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Mar 2016, 11:57 am by Patrick T. Ryan
  By contrast, the Court said that its disapproval of the plaintiffs’ attempt to use sampling and statistical evidence in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]