In re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation
United States Courts of Appeals for the Third Circuit
134 F.3d 133 (1998)

- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
Certain General Motors pickup-truck owners originally sought class-action certification in a federal district court in Pennsylvania in their products-liability case arising from the allegedly defective design of the fuel systems in some GM pickup trucks. The Pennsylvania district court certified a nationwide class for settlement purposes, but the Third Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the certification order, set aside the settlement, and remanded the case to fix a defect in the class-certification procedure. Instead of proceeding further in Pennsylvania, the truck owners went to Louisiana and joined a similar pending suit, in which they restructured the settlement deal that was not approved in the Pennsylvania action and submitted the settlement to the Louisiana court for approval. Thereafter, some of the Pennsylvania class members who had objected to the settlement (the Pennsylvania plaintiffs) filed an emergency application with the Pennsylvania district court to enjoin further class-action proceedings in Louisiana. The Pennsylvania district court denied relief, and the Pennsylvania plaintiffs appealed. Thereafter, the Louisiana state court, which had stayed entry of its final order pending the Pennsylvania district court’s decision on the injunction, entered a final judgment approving the settlement agreement.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Becker, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 824,000 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.