Case Citator › Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin

Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
417 U.S. 156
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
44 of 44
Citing cases (total)
44
Treatment dates
2011
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin's individual-notice rule remains in force. The Supreme Court limited its broad language against considering the merits when deciding class certification, as listed below.
More on how this was screened

All 44 flagged citations have been read. The district court's contrary notice ruling in Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 106 F.R.D. 378, was reversed on that issue by the D.C. Circuit, 807 F.2d 1000 (1986), and is excluded.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

44 later cases cite Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin; 44 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Supreme Court held that Eisen's broad statement against preliminary merits inquiries was dictum when proof related to Rule 23's certification requirements overlaps with the merits.

    Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    A statement in one of our prior eases, Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U. S. 156, 177 (1974), is sometimes mistakenly cited to the contrary: “We find nothing in either the language or history of Rule 23 that gives a court any authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the merits of a suit in order to determine whether it may be maintained as a class action.” But in that ease, the judge had conducted a preliminary inquiry into the merits of a suit, not in order to determine the propriety of certification under Rules 23(a) and (b) (he had already done that, see id., at 165), but in order to shift the cost of notice required by Rule 23(c)(2) from the plaintiff to the defendants. To the extent the quoted statement goes beyond the permissibility of a merits inquiry for any other pretrial purpose, it is the purest dictum and is contradicted by our other cases.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace