DOW CHEMICAL CO. ET AL.
v.
STEPHENSON ET AL.
DOW CHEMICAL CO. ET AL.
STEPHENSON ET AL.
539 U.S. 111
Supreme Court of the United States (2003)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 156 L. Ed. 2d 106 · 123 S. Ct. 2161 · 2003 U.S. LEXIS 4576 · SCDB 2002-070
Cited by 4 cases
Per_curiam
[*112] Per Curiam.
With respect to respondents Joe Isaacson and Phyllis Lisa Isaacson, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U. S. 28 (2002).
With respect to respondents Daniel Raymond Stephenson, Susan Stephenson, Daniel Anthony Stephenson, and Emily Elizabeth Stephenson, the judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zuzanna Juris v. Inamed Corp., 685 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2012)…ect of determinations in representative actions.”). The propriety of collateral attacks “is amply supported by precedent.” Stephenson v. Dow Chem. Co., 273 F. 3d 249, 258 (2d Cir.2001), ajfd in part by an equally divided court and vacated in part, 539 U.S. 111, 123 S.Ct. 2161, 156 L.Ed.2d 106 (2003); see Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32, 42, 61 S.Ct. 115, 118, 85 L.Ed. 22 (1940) (“[TJhere has been a failure of due process only in those cases where it cannot be said that the procedure adopted [in the represen…1 / 5
Authorities Cited
- Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (U.S. 2002)