Case Citator › Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor

Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor

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

Criticized by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
521 U.S. 591
Decided
Confirmed treatments
5
Flagged citations read
362 of 362
Citing cases (total)
4,988
Treatment dates
2015–2019
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor remains controlling law on settlement class certification, but its wording of the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry has been criticized. All 362 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

Five opinions by a federal district judge called that formulation a circular axiom while continuing to apply Amchem's class certification rules; the confirmed criticisms are listed below.

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.

4,988 later cases cite Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor; 362 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 Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor?

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

Criticized

  • The court called Amchem's formulation of the predominance inquiry a circular axiom that offered little practical guidance.

    Anderson Living Trust v. WPX Energy Production, LLC · District of New Mexico · filed

    circular axiom, see, e.g., Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. at 623, 117 S.Ct. 2231 (“The Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.”)
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court criticized Amchem's description of predominance as a circular axiom rather than a usable test.

    Abraham v. WPX Energy Production, LLC · District of New Mexico · filed

    circular axiom, see, e.g., Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. at 623, 117 S.Ct. 2231 (“The Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.”)
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court criticized Amchem's description of predominance as a circular axiom rather than a usable test.

    Zuniga v. Bernalillo County · District of New Mexico · filed

    circular axiom, see, e.g., Amchem Prods., Inc., 621 U.S. at 623, 117 S.Ct. 2231 (“The Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.”)
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court criticized Amchem's description of predominance as a circular axiom rather than a usable test.

    Abraham v. WPX Energy Production, LLC · District of New Mexico · filed

    circular axiom, see, e.g., Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. at 623, 117 S.Ct. 2231 (“The Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.”)
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court again criticized Amchem's predominance formulation as a circular axiom while applying its Rule 23 standards.

    Bhasker v. Kemper Casualty Insurance Co. · District of New Mexico · filed

    circular axiom, see, e.g., Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. at 623, 117 S.Ct. 2231 ("The Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.")
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor 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