Case Citator › Felzen v. Andreas

Felzen v. Andreas

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

Overruled in part
Court
Seventh Circuit
Citation
134 F.3d 873
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
73 of 73
Citing cases (total)
127
Treatment dates
2001–2002
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Felzen v. Andreas is overruled in part: all 73 flagged citations have been read, and the two confirmed treatments are listed below. The Supreme Court held in Devlin v. Scardelletti that a class member who timely objected may appeal settlement approval without intervening.
More on how this was screened

The later Seventh Circuit opinion in Securities & Exchange Commission v. Enterprise Trust Co. expressly names Felzen and identifies the contradiction. Devlin did not decide the separate derivative-shareholder question. The other citing opinions applied Felzen or used nearby adverse language for other precedents.

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.

127 later cases cite Felzen v. Andreas; 73 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 Felzen v. Andreas?

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

Overruled in part

  • The Supreme Court displaced Felzen's requirement that a class member intervene to appeal approval of a class settlement, holding that timely objectors may appeal without intervening.

    Devlin v. Scardelletti · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We hold that nonnamed class members like petitioner who have objected in a timely manner to approval of the settlement at the fairness hearing have the power to bring an appeal without first intervening.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Criticized

  • The Fourth Circuit rejected Felzen's broad reading of Marino in the class-settlement setting, while initially agreeing that an objector had to intervene to appeal.

    Scardelletti v. DeBarr · Fourth Circuit · filed

    The Sevenlh Circuit, in Felzen v. Andreas, 134 F.3d 873 (7th Cir.1998), aff’d by equally divided Court, 525 U.S. 315, 119 S.Ct. 720, 142 L.Ed.2d 766 (1999), reads Marino broadly to support its conclusion that a class member must formally become a party to appeal the final decision in derivative or class action litigation. ... We agree with those courts that have declined to apply Marino in the context of a non-named class member seeking to appeal from the final judgment in a class action.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Felzen v. Andreas 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