Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Wal-mart Stores, Inc. Vs. Dukes

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 20, 2011

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

69 entries 4 linked 65 unlinked
Show
  1. Califano Vs. Yamasaki US Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1979
  2. Amchem Products, Inc. Vs. Windsor US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1997
  3. Ticor Title Ins. Co. Vs. Brown US Supreme Court · Apr 04, 1994
  4. Albemarle Paper Co. Vs. Moody US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1975
  5. Et Al. Syllabus October Term, 2010 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. V. Dukes
    Search
  6. Cooper v. Federal
    Search
  7. b) General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon
    Search
  8. Teamsters v. United
    Search
  9. in part and dissenting in part, in which Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
    Search
  10. Opinion of the Court Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. V. Dukes
    Search
  11. Supreme Court of the United States No. 10-277 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Petitioner V. Betty
    Search
  12. tried as a class action because the District Court could adopt the approach the Ninth Circuit approved in Hilao v. Estate
    Search
  13. East Tex. Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez
    Search
  14. U. S. 395 , 403 (1977) (quoting Schlesinger v. Reservists
    Search
  15. General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon
    Search
  16. U. S. 147 , 156 (1982) (quoting General Telephone Co. of Northwest v. EEOC
    Search
  17. Falcon , supra , at 160 (quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay
    Search
  18. to resolve preliminary matters, e.g. , jurisdiction and venue, is a familiar feature of litigation. See Szabo v. Bridgeport
    Search
  19. the admission of expert testimony under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 702 and our Daubert case, see Daubert v. Merrell
    Search
  20. Watson v. Fort
    Search
  21. such as scores on general aptitude tests or educational achievements, see Griggs v. Duke
    Search
  22. accord, Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
    Search
  23. to raise any inference that all the individual, discretionary personnel decisions are discriminatory. In Teamsters v. United
    Search
  24. of whom 571 were minorities, id. , at 337, and the class itself consisted of around 334 persons, United States v. T.I
    Search
  25. backpay were improperly certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). Our opinion in Ticor Title Ins. Co. v. Brown
    Search
  26. that predated its codification, Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor
    Search
  27. in determining its meaning we have previously looked to the historical models on which the Rule was based, Ortiz v. Fibreboard
    Search
  28. e.g. , Potts v. Flax
    Search
  29. Brunson v. Board
    Search
  30. Frasier v. Board
    Search
  31. for money damages we have held that absence of notice and opt-out violates due process. See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts
    Search
  32. g)(2)(A)). C In Allison v. Citgo
    Search
  33. adequate-representation requirements of Rule 23(a). Footnote 6 A statement in one of our prior cases, Eisen v. Carlisle
    Search
  34. b)(3) certification must prove that their shares were traded on an efficient market, Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton
    Search
  35. see also Franks v. Bowman
    Search
  36. Amchem, supra , at 614. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
    Search
  37. Opinion of Ginsburg, J. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. V. Dukes
    Search
  38. s finding of commonality. See Califano v. Yamasaki
    Search
  39. cf. Ledbetter v. Goodyear
    Search
  40. allegations resemble those in one of the prototypical cases in this area, Leisner v. New
    Search
  41. such practices are motivated by discriminatory intent but also when they produce discriminatory results. See Watson v. Fort
    Search
  42. See also Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
    Search
  43. For example, in Franks v. Bowman
    Search
  44. step in the usual order of proof for plaintiffs seeking individual remedies for company-wide discrimination. Teamsters v. United
    Search
  45. see Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody
    Search
  46. crafted in the grammatical form of a question. Footnote 4 The majority purports to derive from Teamsters v. United
    Search
  47. Id ., at 738. Footnote 7 The Court places considerable weight on General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon
    Search
  48. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Petitioner V. Betty
    Search
  49. Hilao v. Estate
    Search
  50. Schlesinger v. Reservists
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial