# In Re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · April 17, 1995 · 55 F.3d 768

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9815932

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION PICK-UP TRUCK FUEL TANK PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Jack French, Robert M. West, Charles E. Merritt, Gary Blades, Dawn and Tracey Best, Gary and Jackie Barnes, Betty Marteny, John and Mary Southands, Edmund Berning, Dale W. Plummer, Edmund and Anneta Casey, John and Connie Yonki, Carl and Kathryn Corona, Dallas and Patricia Nelson, Mynard and Mildred Duncan, Kirby L. Stegman, DeWayne Anderson, Morris and Barbara Betzold, Appellants in No. 94-1064. Rudolph Jenkins, William D. Cunningham, Mather Johnson, Forrest Charles Ginn, Buren William Jones and Martin D. Parkman, Appellants in No. 94-1194. Parish of Jefferson, Appellant in No. 94-1195. the State of New York, Appellant in No. 94-1198. Elton Wilson, Individually, and Frank I. Owen, Individually and on Behalf of the Residents of the State of Alabama, Appellants in No. 94-1202. City of New York, Appellant in No. 94-1203. Betty Youngs, Barbara Phillips, Margaret Engel, Larry Swope, Robbin Maxwell and Center for Auto Safety, Appellants in No. 94-1207. Betty Youngs, Barbara Phillips, Margaret Engel, Larry Swope, Robbin Maxwell and Center for Auto Safety, Appellants in No. 94-1208. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Appellant in No. 94-1219
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** April 17, 1995
- **Citations:** 55 F.3d 768
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Gibson
- **Judges:** Becker, Alito, Gibson, History, Standard, Review, Background, Principles, Rule, Settlement
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9815932

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that an ALJ could consider a portion of a doctor’s diagnosis which appears to be based on a claimant’s own statements as less significant than the doctor’s other findings

## Opinion text

JOHN R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring in the central holding and with the judgment.
The court today issues a truly masterful opinion. I concur fully in the central holding of the court that the district court failed to make adequate findings under Rule 23(a) to justify class certification, and that the case must be remanded to the district court for further proceedings, and amplification of the record. I concur fully in the reasoning of the court that supports this conclusion and holding, and concur specifically in Parts I, II, III, IV.A, ■ D, E, F, and V.A. and B.l of the opinion.
In addition, I certainly agree that it follows that the district court on remand must consider further the issues of the adequacy of representation, whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, and if reached, issues relating to attorneys’ fees.
With respect to the remainder of the opinion, I am of the thought that some of the discussion is simply not required to support the holding we reach, specifically Part IV.B and C. In view of the fact that we are remanding for adequate findings under Rule 23(a), I think we need not reach the issue of whether the class requisites have been made on the current record, as we can anticipate that the district court will conduct further proceedings and make additional record in order to fully support such findings. Thus, I think Part V.B.2 dealing with adequacy of representation, Part VI dealing with whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate on the record before us, and Part VII dealing with issues relating to the attorneys’ fees simply need not be addressed in detail as they may come before this court on a far different record after remand.
I must make clear that I have misgivings about not joining in the full opinion. The opinion is a most thorough and scholarly analysis of the numerous issues surrounding settlement of class actions and approval of settlement classes. It will stand as the opinion of the court. My concerns are simply that the court has discussed areas that it need not reach.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9815932. Public record. Not legal advice.