Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin
United States Supreme Court
417 U.S. 156, 94 S.Ct. 2140 (1974)
- Written by Alexis Tsotakos, JD
Facts
Eisen (plaintiff), an odd-lot trader on the New York Stock Exchange, filed a class action suit against DeCoppet & Doremus and Carlisle & Jacquelin (defendant) on behalf of himself and individuals who traded odd-lot stocks between May 1, 1962 and June 30, 1966. The class was comprised of approximately 2,250,000 members. Eisen alleged that the defendants, who handled 99 percent of odd-lot trading on the Exchange, were charging an excessively high differential for trades, and that they had an unlawful monopoly over the market in violation of the Sherman Act. The defendants challenged the certification of the class under Rule 23, and the district court granted their motion to decertify the class. On appeal, the court of appeals issued two separate rulings: (1) that the district court’s decision was final and therefore properly appealable (Eisen I); and (2) that the class might be properly certified under the rule (Eisen I). The court of appeals thus remanded the case to the district court to make a finding. On remand, the district court found that the class could be properly certified, and the defendants again appealed. The court of appeals reversed the district court’s determination and denied the class certification (Eisen III). The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to clarify several issues in the case.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Powell, J.)
Dissent (Douglas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
