Case Citator › Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.

Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.

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

Overruled in part
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
150 F.3d 1011
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
313 of 313
Citing cases (total)
1,391
Treatment dates
2011
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp. was overruled in part on Rule 23 commonality. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes required a common answer capable of resolving a central issue, displacing Hanlon's more permissive treatment of shared questions.
More on how this was screened

The Ninth Circuit later described Hanlon as overruled on other grounds in Farchione Motors, Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of America. Hanlon's separate settlement, adequacy, notice, and fee principles continue to be applied. All 313 flagged citations have been read; the confirmed treatment is 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.

1,391 later cases cite Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.; 313 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 Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.?

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 Hanlon's permissive Rule 23 commonality standard by requiring a common contention capable of resolving a central issue for the class.

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

    Their claims must depend upon a common contention — for example, the assertion of discriminatory bias on the part of the same supervisor. That common contention, moreover, must be of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution— which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke. ... Rule 23 does not set forth a mere pleading standard. A party seeking class certification must affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with the Rule — that is, he must be prepared to prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of law or fact, etc.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp. 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