Footnotes (117)



Class Certification’s Preclusive Effects

Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law School

November 26, 2010

University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 159, pp. 203-230, PENNumbra, 2011
Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 11-17

In September 2010, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the controversial Baycol litigation. The central question will be whether, subsequent to a denial of class certification, preclusion can prevent an absentee from seeking to certify another class action on a similar claim. This Article answers that question in the affirmative, while warning that the preclusion is very limited in scope. It arrives at this answer by analogizing to the more established doctrine of jurisdiction to determine no jurisdiction: if a court’s finding of no jurisdiction over the subject matter or the person can preclude, then a finding of no authority to proceed as a class action should be preclusive - on that precise issue of no authority, but not on anything else.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 28

Keywords: class action, certification, preclusion, res judicata, Baycol, Bayer

JEL Classification: K41, K13

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: November 27, 2010 ; Last revised: May 18, 2011

Suggested Citation

Clermont, Kevin M., Class Certification’s Preclusive Effects (November 26, 2010). University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 159, pp. 203-230, PENNumbra, 2011; Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 11-17 . Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1715646

Contact Information

Kevin M. Clermont (Contact Author)
Cornell Law School ( email )
Myron Taylor Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
United States
607-255-5189 (Phone)
607-255-7193 (Fax)
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,342
Downloads: 151
Download Rank: 146,561
Footnotes:  117

© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.187 seconds