Esteban Ortiz, et al. v. Fibreboard Corporation, et al. (527 U.S. 815)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 23, 1999 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 527 U.S. 815 · 119 S. Ct. 2295
- Decided
- June 23, 1999
- Term
- October Term 1998
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority author
- Justice Souter
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court. This case turns on the conditions for certifying a mandatory settlement class on a limited fund theory under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(B). We hold that applicants for contested certification on this rationale must show that the fund is limited by more than the agreement of the parties, and has been allocated to claimants belonging within the class by a process addressing any conflicting interests of class members. I Like Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997), this case is a class action prompted by the elephantine mass of asbestos eases, and our discussion in Amchem will suffice to show how this litigation defies customary judicial administration and calls for national legislation. In 1967, one of the first actions for personal asbestos injury was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against a group of asbestos manufacturers. App. to Pet. for Cert. 252a. In the 1970’s and 1980’s, plaintiffs’ lawyers throughout the country, particularly in East Texas, honed the litigation of asbestos claims to the point of almost mechanical regularity, improving the forensic identification of diseases caused by asbestos, refining theories of liability, and often settling large inventories of cases. See D. Hensler, W. Felstiner, M. Selvin, & P. Ebener, Asbestos in the Courts:…
Excerpt of a 97,225-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.