rejecting defendant’s contention of compromise verdict stating that, on review, court must ascertain “only whether the jury’s verdict is reasonable in light of the evidence presented, and not to indulge in unsubstantiated and speculative assertions”
How later courts described this case
- rejecting defendant’s contention of compromise verdict stating that, on review, court must ascertain “only whether the jury’s verdict is reasonable in light of the evidence presented, and not to indulge in unsubstantiated and speculative assertions”
- stating that district court has discretion to. determine whether individualized defenses make manageability of class impossible
- holding that class members in various locations did not invalidate a collective action
- analyzing whether the putative class members (1) worked in the same corporate department, division and location, (2) advanced similar claims, and (3) sought substantially the same form of relief
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by John D. Starceski, at No. 94-3208 v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, at No. 94-3182, 54 F.3d 1089 (1995)
879 F.2d 43, 51 (3d Cir. 1989) (at second stage, courts examine whether all putative class members “(1) [were] employed in the same corporate department, division and location; (2) advanced similar claims []; and (3) sought substantially the same form of relief”), overruled on other grounds by Starceski v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 54 F.3d 1089
Overruled on other grounds by Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993)
879 F.2d 43, 51 (3d Cir.1989), overruled on other grounds by Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 113 S.Ct. 1701, 123 L.Ed.2d 338 (1993).
The opinion
SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
Before GIBBONS, Chief Judge, and HIGGENBOTHAM, SLOVITER, BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, HUTCHINSON, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
A. LEON HIGGENBOTHAM, Jr., Circuit Judge.
The petition for rehearing filed by appellant in the above — entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular service not having voted for rehearing, the petition for rehearing by the panel and the Court in banc, is denied. Judge Hutchinson would grant rehearing before the Court in banc. Judge Garth would grant the petition for panel rehearing for all of the reasons expressed in his panel dissent. See supra, at 59.