Litigants: | Comcast Corp. v. Behrend |
Arguedate: | November 5 |
Argueyear: | 2012 |
Decidedate: | March 27 |
Decideyear: | 2013 |
Fullname: | Comcast Corporation, et al., Petitioners v. Caroline Behrend, et al. |
Usvol: | 569 |
Uspage: | 27 |
Parallelcitations: | 133 S. Ct. 1426; 185 L. Ed. 2d 515; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 2544, 81 U.S.L.W. 4217 |
Docket: | 11-864 |
Prior: | Decision against defendant, 264 F.R.D. 150 (E.D. Pa. 2010); affirmed, 655 F.3d 182 (3d Cir. 2011); rehearing en banc denied, unreported; certiorari granted, . |
Opinionannouncement: | https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-864_k537.pdf |
Holding: | Respondents' class action was improperly certified under Rule 23(b)(3). |
Majority: | Scalia |
Joinmajority: | Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito |
Dissent: | Ginsburg and Breyer |
Joindissent: | Sotomayor, Kagan |
Lawsapplied: | Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) |
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with class certification under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.[1] The case restricted class certifications. The votes were split upon typical ideological lines, but, in an unusual move, the dissent was jointly written by two justices.