Comcast Corp. v. Behrend | |
---|---|
Argued November 5, 2012 Decided March 27, 2013 | |
Full case name | Comcast Corporation, et al., Petitioners v. Caroline Behrend, et al. |
Docket no. | 11-864 |
Citations | 569 U.S. 27 (more) 133 S. Ct. 1426; 185 L. Ed. 2d 515; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 2544, 81 U.S.L.W. 4217 |
Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
Case history | |
Prior | Decision against defendant, 264 F.R.D. 150 (E.D. Pa. 2010); affirmed, 655 F.3d 182 (3d Cir. 2011); rehearing en banc denied, unreported; certiorari granted, 567 U.S. 933 (2012). |
Holding | |
Respondents' class action was improperly certified under Rule 23(b)(3). | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito |
Dissent | Ginsburg and Breyer, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan |
Laws applied | |
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) |
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with class certification under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.[1] The case restricted class certifications. The votes were split upon typical ideological lines, but, in an unusual move, the dissent was jointly written by two justices.
References
External links
- Text of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)
Hey There!!
Ya know how ya always wonder if those awesome recommendations you see on some websites might be written by the owners?
Well… This is one of those. Let me put your mind at ease and I’ll just come out and say it. Our products our awesome!!!
I hope everyone else feels the same way and posts their comments here 🙂
Enjoy every precious moment
Joe Zia