Search for: "Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin" Results 1 - 20 of 38
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Sep 2015, 10:21 am by Paul Karlsgodt
I was privileged to be invited to participate in a recent mini-conference with the Rule 23 Subcommittee to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, the committee that evaluates and proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for consideration by the Supreme Court. [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 12:36 am by Andrew Trask
Carlisle & Jacqueline to blockade against either (1) inconvenient facts or (2) costly, time-consuming dives into certification-related issues. [read post]
17 May 2013, 12:29 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Carlisle & Jacquelin, 391 F.2d 555, 572 (2d Cir.1968) (Judge Lumbard, dissenting from remand)). [read post]
4 Sep 2012, 5:57 am by Walter Olson
For many years, under a widespread interpretation of a 1974 Supreme Court case called Eisen v. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 8:39 pm by Kirk Jenkins
Carlisle & Jacquelin against inquiring into the merits at the class certification stage.  [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 11:52 am by Sheppard Mullin
Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 177 (1974): "We find nothing in either the language or history of Rule 23 that gives a court any authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the merits of a suit in order to determine whether it may be maintained as a class action." [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 1:24 pm by Roy Ginsburg
Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (1974), and General Telephone Co. of the Southwest v. [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 9:25 pm by Paul Karlsgodt
For more than 30 years, plaintiffs’ counsel and many courts have cited the Court’s opinion in Eisen v. [read post]
6 Jun 2011, 2:28 pm by Kimberly A. Kralowec
Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (1974), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, when it held that a plaintiff must establish loss causation to invoke the fraud-on-the-market presumption. [read post]