The University of Michigan
Information on Admissions Lawsuits

News Releases & Articles | Statements by University Leaders & Others | Press Kits, Photos & Media Contacts
¡En Español! | Archived Documents | U-M News Service | U-M Gateway

Supporting Research Court Filings Legal Overview FAQs What's New Admissions Lawsuits Home Page
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and for Bifurcation in Gratz

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1.  Whether Plaintiffs have met the requirement of Rule 23(a) for class certification.

2.  Whether Plaintiffs have met the requirements of Rule 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2) for class certification, or, alternatively, of Rule 23(b)(3).

3.  Whether the Court should bifurcate trial of the liability and damages phases of the trial.

CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES

Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (1974)

International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977)

Jordan v. Dellway Villa of Tennessee, Ltd., 661 F.2d 588 (6th Cir. 1981)

Moysey v. Andrus, 481 F. Supp. 850 (D.D.C. 1979)

Northeastern Florida Chapter of Associated General Contractors of America v.

City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (1993)

Penland v. Warren County Jail, 797 F.2d 332 (6th Cir. 1986)

Senter v. General Motors Corp., 532 F.2d 511 (6th Cir. 1976, cert. denied 429

U.S. 870 (1976)

Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., 855 F.2d 1188 (6th Cir. 1988)

Weathers v. Peters Realty Corp., 499 F.2d 1197, 1201 (6th Cir. 1974)

iii
Memorandum Questions Presented
& Controlling Authorities
(next sections)
 |  Memorandum
Table of Contents
 |  Gratz case menu

Questions? Comments? Please send e-mail to diversitymatters@umich.edu.
Site last updated: September 5, 2012.   Copyright © 1997–2013 Regents of the University of Michigan.