About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations 1 (July 2019 - April 2020)

handle is hein.ali/aggregate0021 and id is 1 raw text is: PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF AGGREGATE LITIGATION CHAPTER 1. DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES § 1.04. The Internal Objectives of Aggregate Proceedings C.A.Vet.Cl.2019. Rptr's Note to com. (a) cit. in diss. op. Veteran, on behalf of himself and similarly situated persons, filed a petition for extraordinary relief in the form of a writ of mandamus, seeking an order directing the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to decide appeals from decisions on disability compensation filed by veterans facing medical or financial hardship within one year. On rehearing en banc, this court denied veteran's motion for class certification, holding that veteran failed to satisfy the commonality requirement, because there was no common question regarding the cause of delay in the appeals filed by veteran and other members of the proposed class. The concurring and dissenting opinion argued in favor of certifying the proposed class and appointing counsel for veteran as class counsel, reasoning, in part, that, under Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation §§ 1.04 and 1.05, counsel for veteran would fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Monk v. Wilkie, 30 Vet.App. 167, 196. § 1.05. Ensuring Adequate Representation C.A.Vet.Cl.2019. Com. (c) quot. in diss. op.; Rptr's Notes to com. (a) quot. in diss. op. Veteran, on behalf of himself and similarly situated persons, filed a petition for extraordinary relief in the form of a writ of mandamus, seeking an order directing the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to decide appeals from decisions on disability compensation filed by veterans facing medical or financial hardship within one year. On rehearing en banc, this court denied veteran's motion for class certification, holding that veteran failed to satisfy the commonality requirement, because there was no common question regarding the cause of delay in the appeals filed by veteran and other members of the proposed class. The concurring and dissenting opinion argued in favor of certifying the proposed class and appointing counsel for veteran as class counsel, reasoning, in part, that, under Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation §§ 1.04 and 1.05, counsel for veteran would fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Monk v. Wilkie, 30 Vet.App. 167, 196, 197. CHAPTER 3. AGGREGATE SETTLEMENTS TOPIC 2. CLASS SETTLEMENTS § 3.05. Judicial Review of the Fairness of a Class Settlement N.D.Cal.2017. Com. (a) quot. in ftn. Participants in a multi-employer defined-benefit pension fund filed a class action against fund and its trustees, alleging that defendants failed to comply with the requirements of ERISA and the Pension Protection Act in adopting an amendment to the fund. After a COPYRIGHT 02020 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most