Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,400+ case briefs...

Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor

United States Supreme Court
521 U.S. 591, 117 S.Ct. 2231 (1997)



A series of asbestos claims were brought before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation. Due to the volume and complexity of the asbestos litigation, the judicial panel decided to transfer all asbestos claims filed in federal courts, but not yet on trial, to the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. After this consolidation, counsel for Windsor et. al. (plaintiffs) (victims of asbestos exposure) and Amchem Products, Inc. et. al. (defendants) (asbestos manufacturers) reached a partial global settlement. The terms of the settlement were that a class consisting of all individuals with potential asbestos claims who had not yet filed lawsuits would be certified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) (FRCP) for purposes of settlement only. The purpose of the proposed settlement was to attempt to create an administrative structure that would provide set compensation for certain asbestos-related diseases. The district court approved the settlement plan and certified the proposed class. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the lower court's approval of the settlement plan, finding that the requirements of class certification had not been met. Specifically, the Third Circuit held that while a class may be certified for the sole purpose of settlement, all formal certification requirements outlined in FRCP 23 must still be met, as though the case were going to trial. The circuit court found an error with this certification, because it believed the class failed to demonstrate that common issues of fact predominated over other questions, as required under FRCP 23(b)(3), or that the named plaintiffs would "fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." Windsor petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari, which was granted.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Ginsburg, J.)

Concurrence/Dissent (Breyer, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 497,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 497,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,400 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial