Other Contributors

About Us

The contributors to the Consumer Law & Policy blog are lawyers and law professors who practice, teach, or write about consumer law and policy. The blog is hosted by Public Citizen Litigation Group, but the views expressed here are solely those of the individual contributors (and don't necessarily reflect the views of institutions with which they are affiliated). To view the blog's policies, please click here.

« Large multinational corporations pay far less in U.S. corporate income tax than they used to | Main | Supreme Court Opinion in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend: Another view »

Wednesday, March 27, 2013


Max Kennerly

In many ways, the case is so transparently results-oriented that it cannot possibly be applied to other cases without further clarification from the Court as to what they really met. Take a look at Footnote 6 of Scalia's opinion: he is apparently claiming, in what is admittedly dicta, that, for class certification to be granted in the future, the plaintiff must show that all class members suffered exactly the same amount of damage.

It is an embarrassment to the Court to see these types of opinions come out with such frequency.

Kimberly A. Kralowec

Justice Scalia's explanation was that the plaintiffs had ill-advisedly conceded that damages must be established by common proof. Therefore, as Justice Ginsburg observed, the Court did not need to reach that question, let alone substantively resolve it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe to CL&P

RSS/Atom Feed

To receive a daily email of Consumer Law & Policy content, enter your email address here:

Search CL&P Blog

Recent Posts

September 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30