Citation network
DevlIn Vs. Scardelletti
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 26, 2002
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
Cases Adjudged in the Supreme Court of the United States at October Term, 2001 Syllabus Devlin V. ScardellettiSearch
-
over the petitioner's objections, petitioner's interests diverge from those of the class representative. Marino v. OrtizSearch
-
had breached their fiduciary duties and that ending the COLA for retired workers would not violate ERISA. Scardelletti v. BoboSearch
-
Scardelletti v. BoboSearch
-
Devlin v. TransportationSearch
-
Scardelletti v. DebarrSearch
-
class members who fail to properly intervene may bring an appeal of the approval of a settlement. Compare Cook v. PowellSearch
-
Gottlieb v. WilesSearch
-
Guthrie v. EvansSearch
-
Shults v. ChampionSearch
-
Carlough v. AmchemSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Marshall v. HolidaySearch
-
sufficient to satisfy the constitutional 7 requirements of injury, causation, and redressability. Lujan v. DefendersSearch
-
Allen v. WrightSearch
-
an appeal. We have never, however, restricted the right to appeal to named parties to the litigation. In Blossom v. MilwaukeeSearch
-
the foreclosure action, to appeal the refusal of a request he made during that action to compel the sale. In Hinckley v. GilmanSearch
-
United States Catholic Conference v. AbortionSearch
-
sufficient to trigger his right to appeal. See Williams v. MorganSearch
-
petitioner's objections, petitioner's interests by definition diverge from those of the class representative. Marino v. OrtizSearch
-
see also Snyder v. HarrisSearch
-
of an action on behalf of the class tolls a statute of limitations against them. See American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. UtahSearch
-
they would undermine one of the goals of class action litigation, namely, preventing multiple suits. See Guthrie v. EvansSearch
-
for the purposes of such limited intervention. United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonaldSearch
-
is filed and the time class certification is denied. Ante, at 10 (citing American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. UtahSearch
-
We made this distinction between appealing the judgment and appealing a collateral order quite explicit in Blossom v. MilwaukeeSearch
-
foreclosure sale, and therefore could appeal from the order denying that motion. Ibid. Our decisions in Hinckley v. GilmanSearch
-
c., & S. R. Co., 94 U. S. 467 (1877), and United States Catholic Conference v. AbortionSearch
-
consist entirely of state courts, with the exception of one federal case decided before our decision in Marino v. OrtizSearch
-
to gain from filing his objection in the first place, but was undeterred (as many are), see, e. g., Shaw v. ToshibaSearch
-
Syllabus Devlin V. ScardellettiSearch
-
ERISA. Scardelletti v. BoboSearch
-
Compare Cook v. PowellSearch
-
Lujan v. DefendersSearch
-
In Blossom v. MilwaukeeSearch
-
In Hinckley v. GilmanSearch
-
See Williams v. MorganSearch
-
Snyder v. HarrisSearch
-
See American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. UtahSearch
-
See Guthrie v. EvansSearch
-
American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. UtahSearch
-
Blossom v. MilwaukeeSearch
-
Hinckley v. GilmanSearch
-
and United States Catholic Conference v. AbortionSearch
-
Shaw v. ToshibaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial