| 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)
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.