| 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 | 569U.S. 27 (more) 133 S. Ct. 1426; 185L. Ed. 2d 515; 2013U.S. LEXIS 2544, 81 U.S.L.W. 4217 |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Decision against defendant, 264F.R.D. 150 (E.D. Pa. 2010); affirmed, 655F.3d 182 (3d Cir. 2011); rehearingen banc denied, unreported; certiorari granted,567 U.S. 933 (2012). |
| Holding | |
| Courts certifying classes must thoroughly vet prospective classes for all four requirements even if the court's analysis touches on the merits of the claim. | |
| 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 aUnited States Supreme Court case in which the court held that courts certifying classes must thoroughly vet prospective classes for all four requirements even if the court's analysis touches on the merits of the claim.[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.[2]
 | This article related to a case of theSupreme Court of the United States of theRoberts Court is astub. You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it. |
