holding that under Wilkerson, it was error for district court to deny class action certification motion of named plaintiffs whose claims were resolved after filing motion for class certification but before district court decided motion
How later courts described this case
- holding that under Wilkerson, it was error for district court to deny class action certification motion of named plaintiffs whose claims were resolved after filing motion for class certification but before district court decided motion
- distinguishing between cases where plaintiffs claim becomes moot before certification of class and where plaintiffs claim becomes moot after certification of class
- “Long-standing principles of administrative law require 13 [the court] to review the ALJ’s decision based on the reasoning and factual findings offered 14 by the ALJ—not post hoc rationalizations that attempt to intuit what the adjudicator may 15 have been thinking.”
- the Court reviews the ALJ’s decision “based on the reasoning 13 and factual findings offered by the ALJ—not post hoc rationalizations that attempt to intuit what 14 the adjudicator may have been thinking.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
March 9, 1994.
PRESENT: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, HUTCHINSON, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO, ROTH and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.
The petition for rehearing filed by appellee in the above entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all other available circuit judges in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in .banc, the petition for rehearing is denied. Judges Stapleton, Hutchinson and Roth would have granted rehearing.