Show simple item record

Hogs Get Slaughtered at the Supreme Court

dc.contributor.authorSherry, Suzanna
dc.identifier.citation2011 The Supreme Court Review 1 (2011)en_US
dc.descriptionarticle published in law reviewen_US
dc.description.abstractClass action plaintiffs lost two major five-to-four cases last Term, with potentially significant consequences for future class litigation: AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion and Wal-Mart v. Dukes. The tragedy is that the impact of each of these cases might have been avoided had the plaintiffs’ lawyers, the lower courts, and the dissenting Justices not overreached. In this Article, I argue that those on the losing side insisted on broad and untenable positions and thereby set themselves up for an equally broad defeat; they got greedy and suffered the inevitable consequences. Unfortunately, the consequences will redound to the detriment of many other potential litigants. And these two cases are not isolated tragedies; they provide a window into a larger problem of Rule 23. When plaintiffs’ lawyers chart a course for future litigants, they may be tempted to frame issues broadly for the “big win” – with disastrous consequences. I suggest that it is up to the courts, and especially to those judges most sympathetic to the interests of class-action plaintiffs, to avoid the costs of lawyers’ overreaching. That is exactly what the dissenting Justices (and the judges below) failed to do in these cases.en_US
dc.format.extent1 PDF (39 pages)en_US
dc.publisherThe Supreme Court Reviewen_US
dc.subjectRule 23en_US
dc.subjectAT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcionen_US
dc.subjectWal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukesen_US
dc.subject.lcshClass actions (Civil procedure) -- United States -- Casesen_US
dc.subject.lcshUnited States. Supreme Courten_US
dc.titleHogs Get Slaughtered at the Supreme Courten_US

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record