Case Citator › Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes

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
564 U.S. 338
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
458 of 458
Citing cases (total)
4,644
Treatment dates
2012
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes has been criticized by two district courts, as listed below. One objected to its rule on former employees seeking injunctive relief; the other challenged its comments on expert evidence at class certification.
More on how this was screened

All 458 flagged citations have been read. The cited opinions continued to apply Dukes's binding holdings.

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.

4,644 later cases cite Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes; 458 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 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes?

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 criticized Dukes's rule denying former employees standing to seek classwide injunctive relief, while following it.

    Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. · S.D.N.Y. · filed

    In this sense, the Dukes majority’s blanket rule that always denies standing to ex-employees cuts too broad a swath.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court criticized Dukes's comments on expert evidence as mischaracterizing the district court's ruling and declined to read them as requiring full Daubert review at class certification.

    Tait v. BSH Home Appliances Corp. · C.D. Cal. · filed

    Interestingly, the Supreme Court’s dicta appears to mischaracterize the district court’s holding in Dukes IV, and this mischaracterization illustrates exactly why Supreme Court dicta on issues neither briefed nor argued before the Supreme Court is a treacherous guide for lower courts.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes 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