In re A.H. Robins Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
880 F.2d 709 (1989)
- Written by Catherine Cotovsky, JD
Facts
Seven women (women) (plaintiffs) petitioned, on behalf of themselves and as proposed class representatives, to recover from Aetna Casualty and Surety Company (Aetna) (defendant) for injuries the women suffered while using the Dalkon Shield intrauterine device. The Dalkon Shield was manufactured by A.H. Robins Company, Inc. (Robins), and Robins carried products-liability insurance through Aetna. The women sued Aetna as a joint tortfeasor in its capacity as Robins’ insurance carrier and moved for class certification. While the motion for class certification was pending, the women and Aetna reached a settlement agreement, but the agreement was conditioned on certification of the women as a class. The district court certified the class action and approved the settlement agreement, but some of the parties appealed the district court’s orders on the grounds that certification for the purpose of settlement was not permissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Russell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.
