884
Breyer, J., dissenting
to Pet. for Cert. 480a-481a; (3) the adequacy of "notice" to class members pursuant to Rule 23(e) and the Due Process Clause, see id., at 511a; see generally Amchem, supra, at 640-641 (Breyer, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); and (4) the standing-related requirement that each class member have a good-faith basis under state law for claiming damages for some form of injury-in-fact (even if only for fear of cancer or medical monitoring), see App. to Pet. for Cert. 252a; cf., e. g., Coover v. Painless Parker, Dentist, 105 Cal. App. 110, 286 P. 1048 (1930).
In other instances, my belief reflects my conclusion that class certification here rests upon the presence of what is close to a traditional limited fund. And I doubt that petitioners' additional arguments that certification violates, for example, the Rules Enabling Act, the Bankruptcy Act, the Seventh Amendment, and the Due Process Clause are aimed at, or would prevail against, a traditional limited fund (e. g., "trust assets, a bank account, insurance proceeds, company assets in a liquidation sale, proceeds of a ship sale in a maritime accident suit," ante, at 834 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Cf. In re Asbestos Litigation, 90 F. 3d, at 986 (noting that Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U. S. 797 (1985), involved a class certified under the equivalent of Rule 23(b)(3), not a limited fund case under Rule 23(b)(1)(B)). Regardless, I need not decide these latter issues definitively now, and I leave them for another day. With that caveat, I respectfully dissent.
Page: Index Previous 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70Last modified: October 4, 2007