UMKC Law Review

Home » Border Wars » Dukes of Hazard: Rule 23(a)(2) Commonality Post Wal-Mart v. Dukes by Padraic Corcoran

Dukes of Hazard: Rule 23(a)(2) Commonality Post Wal-Mart v. Dukes by Padraic Corcoran

PDF

Dukes of Hazard

“[T]here are questions of law of fact common to the class…” In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that a class of 1.5 million class members, spanning all fifty states, did not meet the required commonality quoted above. The Court ruled that commonality required plaintiffs to establish that all class members suffered the same injury. The Court interpreted the above quotation to require potential members’ claims have a common contention capable of resolution among the entire class. This means “determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” The Court went on to quote a law review article that stated,

…Read the Full Text…


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s