text:
Class action

A class action, also known as a class action lawsuit, class suit, or representative action, is a type of lawsuit where one of the parties is a group of people who are represented collectively by a member or members of that group. The class action originated in the United States and is still predominantly an American phenomenon, but Canada, as well as several European countries with civil law, have made changes in recent years to allow consumer organizations to bring claims on behalf of consumers.

Description
In a typical class action, a plaintiff sues a defendant or a number of defendants on behalf of a group, or class, of absent parties. This differs from a traditional lawsuit, where one party sues another party, and all of the parties are present in court. Although standards differ between states and countries, class actions are most common where the allegations usually involve at least 40 people who the same defendant has injured in the same way. Instead of each damaged person bringing one's own lawsuit, the class action allows all the claims of all class members—whether they know they have been damaged or not—to be resolved in a single proceeding through the efforts of the representative plaintiff(s) and appointed class counsel.

England and the United Kingdom
The antecedent of the class action was what modern observers call "group litigation," which appears to have been quite common in medieval England from about 1200 onward. These lawsuits involved groups of people either suing or being sued in actions at common law. These groups were usually based on existing societal structures like villages, towns, parishes, and guilds. Unlike modern courts, the medieval English courts did not question the right of the actual plaintiffs to sue on behalf of a group or a few representatives to defend an entire group.

From 1400 to 1700, group litigation gradually switched from being the norm in England to the exception. The development of the concept of the corporation led to the wealthy supporters of the corporate form becoming suspicious of all unincorporated legal entities, which in turn led to the modern concept of the unincorporated or voluntary association. The tumultuous history of the Wars of the Roses and then the Star Chamber resulted in periods during which the common law courts were frequently paralyzed, and out of the confusion the Court of Chancery emerged with exclusive jurisdiction over group litigation.

By 1850, Parliament had enacted several statutes on a case-by-case basis to deal with issues regularly faced by certain types of organizations, like joint-stock companies, and with the impetus for most types of group litigation removed, it went into a steep decline in English jurisprudence from which it never recovered. It was further weakened by the fact that equity pleading, in general, was falling into disfavor, which culminated in the Judicature Acts of 1874 and 1875. Group litigation was essentially dead in the United Kingdom after 1850.

United States
Class actions survived in the United States thanks to the influence of Supreme Court Associate Justice Joseph Story, who imported it into US law through summary discussions in his two equity treatises as well as his opinion in West v. Randall (1820). However, Story did not necessarily endorse class actions, because he "could not conceive of a modern function or a coherent theory for representative litigation."

The oldest predecessor to the class-action rule in the United States was in the Federal Equity Rules, specifically Equity Rule 48, promulgated in 1842.

"Where the parties on either side are very numerous, and cannot, without manifest inconvenience and oppressive delays in the suit, be all brought before it, the court in its discretion may dispense with making all of them parties, and may proceed in the suit, having sufficient parties before it to represent all the adverse interests of the plaintiffs and the defendants in the suit properly before it. But in such cases, the decree shall be without prejudice to the rights and claims of all the absent parties."

This allowed for representative suits in situations where there were too many individual parties (which now forms the first requirement for class-action litigation – numerosity). However, this rule did not allow such suits to bind similarly situated absent parties, which rendered the rule ineffective. Within ten years, the Supreme Court interpreted Rule 48 in such a way so that it could apply to absent parties under certain circumstances, but only by ignoring the plain meaning of the rule. In the rules published in 1912, Equity Rule 48 was replaced with Equity Rule 38 as part of a major restructuring of the Equity Rules, and when federal courts merged their legal and equitable procedural systems in 1938, Equity Rule 38 became Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Modern developments
A major revision of the FRCP in 1966 radically transformed Rule 23, made the opt-out class action the standard option, and gave birth to the modern class action. Entire treatises have been written since to summarize the huge mass of law that sprang up from the 1966 revision of Rule 23. Just as medieval group litigation bound all members of the group regardless of whether they all actually appeared in court, the modern class action binds all members of the class, except for those who choose to opt out (if the rules permit them to do so).

The Advisory Committee that drafted the new Rule 23 in the mid-1960s was influenced by two major developments. First was the suggestion of Harry Kalven Jr. and Maurice Rosenfield in 1941 that class-action litigation by individual shareholders on behalf of all shareholders of a company could effectively supplement direct government regulation of securities markets and other similar markets. The second development was the rise of the civil rights movement, environmentalism and consumerism. The groups behind these movements, as well as many others in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, all turned to class actions as a means for achieving their goals. For example, a 1978 environmental law treatise reprinted the entire text of Rule 23 and mentioned "class actions" 14 times in its index.

Businesses targeted by class actions for inflicting massive aggregate harm have sought ways to avoid class actions altogether. In the 1990s, the US Supreme Court issued several decisions that strengthened the "federal policy favoring arbitration". In response, lawyers have added provisions to consumer contracts of adhesion called "collective action waivers", which prohibit those signing the contracts from bringing class-action suits. In 2011, the US Supreme Court ruled in a 5–4 decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion that the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 preempts state laws that prohibit contracts from disallowing class-action lawsuits, which will make it more difficult for consumers to file class-action lawsuits. The dissent pointed to a saving clause in the federal act which allowed states to determine how a contract or its clauses may be revoked.

In two major 21st-century cases, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 against certification of class actions due to differences in each individual members' circumstances: first in Wal-Mart v. Dukes (2011) and later in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend (2013).

Companies may insert the phrase "may elect to resolve any claim by individual arbitration" into their consumer and employment contracts to use arbitration and prevent class-action lawsuits.

Rejecting arguments that they violated employees' rights to collective bargaining, and that modestly-valued consumer claims would be more efficiently litigated within the parameters of one lawsuit, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (2018), enabled the use of class action waivers. Citing its deference to freedom to contract principles, the Epic Systems opinion opened the door dramatically to the use of these waivers as a condition of employment, consumer purchases and the like. Some commentators in opposition to the ruling see it as a "death knell" to many employment and consumer class actions, and have increasingly pushed for legislation to circumvent it in hopes of reviving otherwise-underrepresented parties' ability to litigate on a group basis. Supporters (mostly pro-business) of the high court's ruling argue its holding is consistent with private contract principles. Many of those supporters had long-since argued that class action procedures were generally inconsistent with due process mandates and unnecessarily promoted litigation of otherwise small claims—thus heralding the ruling's anti-litigation effect.

In 2017, the US Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bristol-Meyer Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), holding that over five hundred plaintiffs from other states cannot bring a consolidated mass action against the pharmaceutical giant in the State of California. This opinion may arguably render nationwide mass action and class action impossible in any single state besides the defendant's home state.

In 2020, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals found incentive awards are impermissible. Incentive awards are a relatively modest payment made to class representatives as part of a class settlement. The ruling was a response to an objector who claimed Rule 23 required that the fee petition be filed before the time frame for class member objections to be filed; and payments to the class representative violates doctrine from two US Supreme Court cases from the 1800s.

Statistics
As of 2010, there was no publicly maintained list of nonsecurities class-action settlements, although a securities class-action database exists in the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse and several for-profit companies maintain lists of the securities settlements. One study of federal settlements required the researcher to manually search databases of lawsuits for the relevant records, although state class actions were not included due to the difficulty in gathering the information. Another source of data is US Bureau of Justice Statistics Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, which offers statistics for the year 2005.

Advantages
Proponents of class actions state that they offer a number of advantages because they aggregate many individualized claims into one representational lawsuit.

First, aggregation can increase the efficiency of the legal process, and lower the costs of litigation. In cases with common questions of law and fact, aggregation of claims into a class action may avoid the necessity of repeating "days of the same witnesses, exhibits and issues from trial to trial". ''Jenkins v. Raymark Indus. Inc.'', 782 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1986) (granting certification of a class action involving asbestos).

Second, a class action may overcome "the problem that small recoveries do not provide the incentive for any individual to bring a solo action prosecuting his or her rights". Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617 (1997) (quoting Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 109 F.3d 388, 344 (7th Cir. 1997)). "A class action solves this problem by aggregating the relatively paltry potential recoveries into something worth someone's (usually an attorney's) labor." Amchem Prods., Inc., 521 U.S. at 617 (quoting Mace, 109 F.3d at 344). In other words, a class action ensures that a defendant who engages in widespread harm – but does so minimally against each individual plaintiff – must compensate those individuals for their injuries. For example, thousands of shareholders of a public company may have losses too small to justify separate lawsuits, but a class action can be brought efficiently on behalf of all shareholders. Perhaps even more important than compensation is that class treatment of claims may be the only way to impose the costs of wrongdoing on the wrongdoer, thus deterring future wrongdoing.

Third, class-action cases may be brought to purposely change behavior of a class of which the defendant is a member. Landeros v. Flood (1976) was a landmark case decided by the California Supreme Court that aimed at purposefully changing the behavior of doctors, encouraging them to report suspected child abuse. Otherwise, they would face the threat of civil action for damages in tort proximately flowing from the failure to report the suspected injuries. Previously, many physicians had remained reluctant to report cases of apparent child abuse, despite existing law that required it.

Fourth, in "limited fund" cases, a class action ensures that all plaintiffs receive relief and that early-filing plaintiffs do not raid the fund (i.e., the defendant) of all its assets before other plaintiffs may be compensated. See Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (1999). A class action in such a situation centralizes all claims into one venue where a court can equitably divide the assets amongst all the plaintiffs if they win the case.

Finally, a class action avoids the situation where different court rulings could create "incompatible standards" of conduct for the defendant to follow. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A). For example, a court might certify a case for class treatment where a number of individual bond-holders sue to determine whether they may convert their bonds to common stock. Refusing to litigate the case in one trial could result in different outcomes and inconsistent standards of conduct for the defendant corporation. Thus, courts will generally allow a class action in such a situation. See, e.g., Van Gemert v. Boeing Co., 259 F. Supp. 125 (S.D.N.Y. 1966).

Whether a class action is superior to individual litigation depends on the case and is determined by the judge's ruling on a motion for class certification. The Advisory Committee Note to Rule 23, for example, states that mass torts are ordinarily "not appropriate" for class treatment. Class treatment may not improve the efficiency of a mass tort because the claims frequently involve individualized issues of law and fact that will have to be re-tried on an individual basis. See ''Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co.'', 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996) (rejecting nationwide class action against tobacco companies). Mass torts also involve high individual damage awards; thus, the absence of class treatment will not impede the ability of individual claimants to seek justice. Other cases, however, may be more conducive to class treatment.

The preamble to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, passed by the United States Congress, found: "Class-action lawsuits are an important and valuable part of the legal system when they permit the fair and efficient resolution of legitimate claims of numerous parties by allowing the claims to be aggregated into a single action against a defendant that has allegedly caused harm."

Criticisms
There are several criticisms of class actions. The preamble to the Class Action Fairness Act stated that some abusive class actions have harmed class members possessing legitimate claims and defendants acting responsibly; have adversely affected interstate commerce; and have undermined public respect for the country's judicial system.

Class members often receive little or no benefit from class actions. Examples cited for this include large fees for the attorneys, while leaving class members with coupons or other awards of little or no value; unjustified awards are made to certain plaintiffs at the expense of other class members; and confusing notices are published that prevent class members from being able to fully understand and effectively exercise their rights.

For example, in the United States, class lawsuits sometimes bind all class members with a low settlement. These "coupon settlements" (which usually allow the plaintiffs to receive a small benefit such as a small check or a coupon for future services or products with the defendant company) are a way for a defendant to forestall major liability by precluding many people from litigating their claims separately, to recover reasonable compensation for the damages. However, existing law requires judicial approval of all class-action settlements, and in most cases, class members are given a chance to opt out of class settlement, though class members, despite opt-out notices, may be unaware of their right to opt-out because they did not receive the notice, did not read it or did not understand it.

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 addresses these concerns. An independent expert may scrutinize coupon settlements before judicial approval in order to ensure that the settlement will be of value to the class members (28 U.S.C.A. 1712(d)). Further, if the action provides for settlement in coupons, "the portion of any attorney's fee award to class counsel that is attributable to the award of the coupons shall be based on the value to class members of the coupons that are redeemed". 28 U.S.C.A. 1712(a).

A common critique is that class actions are a form of judicially sanctioned extortion. The extortion thesis was first articulated by law professor Milton Handler, who published a famous law review article in 1971 calling the class action a form of "legalized blackmail". It has garnered the support of a significant minority of the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, along with prominent judges like Henry Friendly and Richard Posner. However, empirical studies have generally found the extortion thesis to be "overstated".

Ethics
Class action cases present significant ethical challenges. Defendants can hold reverse auctions and any of several parties can engage in collusive settlement discussions. Subclasses may have interests that diverge greatly from the class but may be treated the same. Proposed settlements could offer some groups (such as former customers) much greater benefits than others. In one paper presented at an ABA conference on class actions in 2007, authors commented that "competing cases can also provide opportunities for collusive settlement discussions and reverse auctions by defendants anxious to resolve their new exposure at the most economic cost".

Defendant class action
Although normally plaintiffs are the class, defendant class actions are also possible. For example, in 2005, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon was sued as part of the Catholic priest sex-abuse scandal. All parishioners of the Archdiocese's churches were cited as a defendant class. This was done to include their assets (local churches) in any settlement. Where both the plaintiffs and the defendants have been organized into court-approved classes, the action is called a bilateral class action.

Mass actions
In a class action, the plaintiff seeks court approval to litigate on behalf of a group of similarly situated persons. Not every plaintiff looks for or could obtain such approval. As a procedural alternative, plaintiff's counsel may attempt to sign up every similarly situated person that counsel can find as a client. Plaintiff's counsel can then join the claims of all of these persons in one complaint, a so-called "mass action", hoping to have the same efficiencies and economic leverage as if a class had been certified.

Because mass actions operate outside the detailed procedures laid out for class actions, they can pose special difficulties for both plaintiffs, defendants, and the court. For example, settlement of class actions follows a predictable path of negotiation with class counsel and representatives, court scrutiny, and notice. There may not be a way to uniformly settle all of the many claims brought via a mass action. Some states permit plaintiff's counsel to settle for all the mass action plaintiffs according to a majority vote, for example. Other states, such as New Jersey, require each plaintiff to approve the settlement of that plaintiff's own individual claims.

Argentina
Class actions were recognized in "Halabi" leading case (Supreme Court, 2009).

Australia and New Zealand
Class actions became part of the Australian legal landscape only when the Federal Parliament amended the Federal Court of Australia Act in 1992 to introduce "representative proceedings", the equivalent of the American "class actions".

Likewise, class actions appeared slowly in the New Zealand legal system. However, a group can bring litigation through the action of a representative under the High Court Rules which provide that one or a multitude of persons may sue on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons "with the same interest in the subject matter of a proceeding". The presence and expansion of litigation funders have been playing a significant role in the emergence of class actions in New Zealand. For example, the "Fair Play on Fees" proceedings in relation to penalty fees charged by banks were funded by Litigation Lending Services (LLS), a company specializing in the funding and management of litigation in Australia and New Zealand. It was the biggest class-action suit in New Zealand history.

Austria
The Austrian Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung – ZPO) does not provide for a special proceeding for complex class-action litigation. However, Austrian consumer organizations (Verein für Konsumenteninformation (VKI) and the Federal Chamber of Labour / Bundesarbeitskammer) have brought claims on behalf of hundreds or even thousands of consumers. In these cases, the individual consumers assigned their claims to one entity, who has then brought an ordinary (two-party) lawsuit over the assigned claims. The monetary benefits were redistributed among the class. This technique, labeled as "class action Austrian style," allows for a significant reduction of overall costs. The Austrian Supreme Court, in a judgment, confirmed the legal admissibility of these lawsuits under the condition that all claims are essentially based on the same grounds.

The Austrian Parliament unanimously requested the Austrian Federal Minister for Justice to examine the possibility of new legislation providing for a cost-effective and appropriate way to deal with mass claims. Together with the Austrian Ministry for Social Security, Generations and Consumer Protection, the Justice Ministry opened the discussion with a conference held in Vienna in June 2005. With the aid of a group of experts from many fields, the Justice Ministry began drafting the new law in September 2005. With the individual positions varying greatly, a political consensus could not be reached.

Canada
Provincial laws in Canada allow class actions. All provinces permit plaintiff classes and some permit defendant classes. Quebec was the first province to enact class proceedings legislation, in 1978. Ontario was next, with the Class Proceedings Act, 1992. As of 2008, 9 of 10 provinces had enacted comprehensive class actions legislation. In Prince Edward Island, where no comprehensive legislation exists, following the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. v. Dutton, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 534, class actions may be advanced under a local rule of court. The Federal Court of Canada permits class actions under Part V.1 of the Federal Courts Rules.

Legislation in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Nova Scotia expressly or by judicial opinion has been read to allow for what are informally known as national "opt-out" class actions, whereby residents of other provinces may be included in the class definition and potentially be bound by the court's judgment on common issues unless they opt-out in a prescribed manner and time. Court rulings have determined that this permits a court in one province to include residents of other provinces in the class action on an "opt-out" basis.

Judicial opinions have indicated that provincial legislative national opt-out powers should not be exercised to interfere with the ability of another province to certify a parallel class action for residents of other provinces. The first court to certify will generally exclude residents of provinces whose courts have certified a parallel class action. However, in the Vioxx litigation, two provincial courts certified overlapping class actions whereby Canadian residents were class members in two class actions in two provinces. Both decisions are under appeal.

Other legislation may provide for representative actions on behalf of a large number of plaintiffs, independent of class action procedures. For instance, under Ontario's Condominium Act, a condominium's governing corporation may launch a lawsuit on behalf of the owners for damage to the condominium's common elements, even though the corporation does not own the common elements.

The largest class action suit in Canada was settled in 2005 after Nora Bernard initiated efforts that led to an estimated 79,000 survivors of Canada's residential school system suing the Canadian government. The settlement amounted to upwards of $5 billion.

Chile
Chile approved class actions in 2004. The Chilean model is technically an opt-out issue class action, followed by a compensatory stage which can be collective or individual. This means that the class action is designed to declare the defendant generally liable with erga omnes effects if and only if the defendant is found liable, and the declaratory judgment can be used then to pursue damages in the same procedure or in individual ones in different jurisdictions. If the latter is the case, the liability cannot be discussed, but only the damages. There under the Chilean procedural rules, one particular case works as an opt-out class action for damages. This is the case when defendants can identify and compensate consumers directly, i.e. because it is their banking institution. In such cases, the judge can skip the compensatory stage and order redress directly. Since 2005 more than 100 cases have been filed, mostly by Servicio Nacional del Consumidor [SERNAC], the Chilean consumer protection agency. Salient cases have been Condecus v. BancoEstado and SERNAC v. La Polar.

France
Under French law, an association can represent the collective interests of consumers; however, each claimant must be individually named in the lawsuit. On January 4, 2005, President Chirac urged changes that would provide greater consumer protection. A draft bill was proposed in April 2006 but did not pass.

Following the change of majority in France in 2012, the new government proposed introducing class actions into French law. The project of "loi Hamon" of May 2013 aimed to limit the class action to consumer and competition disputes. The law was passed on March 1, 2014.

Germany
Class actions are generally not permitted in Germany, as German law does not recognize the concept of a targeted class being affected by certain actions. This requires each plaintiff to individually prove that they were affected by an action, and present their individual damages, and prove the causality between both parties.

Joint litigation (Streitgenossenschaft) is a legal act that may permit plaintiffs that are in the same legal community with respect to the dispute, or are entitled by the same factual or legal reason. These are not typically regarded as class action suits, as each individual plaintiff is entitled to compensation for their individual, incurred damages and not as a result of being a member of a class.

The combination of court cases (Prozessverbindung) is another method that permits a judge to combine multiple separate court cases into a single trial with a single verdict. According to § 147 ZPO, this is only permissible if all cases are regarding the same factual and legal event and basis.

Mediation Procedure
A genuine extension of the legal effect of a court decision beyond the parties involved in the proceedings is offered under corporate law. This procedure applies to the review of stock payoffs under Stock Corporation Act (Aktiengesetz. Pursuant to Sec. 13 Sentence 2 Mediation Procedure Act (Spruchverfahrensgesetz §), the court decision concerning the dismissal or direction of a binding arrangement of an adequate compensation is effective for and against all shareholders, including those who have already agreed to a previous settlement in this matter.

Investor Model Case Proceedings
The Capital Investor Model Case Act (Kapitalanleger-Musterverfahrensgesetz) is an attempt to enable model cases to be brought by a large number of potentially affected parties in the event of disputes, limited to the investment market. In contrast to the US class actions, each affected party must file a lawsuit in its own name in order to participate in the model proceedings.

Model Declaratory Action
Effective on November 1, 2018, the Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung) introduced the Model Declaratory Action (§ 606 ZPO) that created the ability to bundle similar claims by many affected parties efficiently into one proceeding.

Registered Consumer Protection Associations can file – if they represent at least 10 individuals – for a (general) judicial finding whether the factual and legal requirements for of claims or legal relationships are met or not. These individuals have to register in order to inhibit their claims. Since these Adjudications are more of a general nature, each individual must assert their claims in their own court proceedings. The competent court is bound by the Model Declaratory Action decision.

Associate Action
German law also recognizes the Associative Action (Verbandsklage), which is comparable to the class action and is predominantly used in environmental law. In civil law, the Associative Action is represented by a foreign body in the matter of asserting and enforcing individual claims and the claimant can no longer control the proceedings.

Class Action With Relation to the United States
Class actions can be brought by Germans in the US for events in Germany if the facts of the case relate to the US. For example, in the case of the Eschede train disaster, the lawsuit was allowed because several aggrieved parties came from the US and had purchased rail tickets there.

India
Decisions of the Indian Supreme Court in the 1980s loosened strict locus standi requirements to permit the filing of suits on behalf of rights of deprived sections of society by public-minded individuals or bodies. Although not strictly "class action litigation" as it is understood in American law, Public Interest Litigation arose out of the wide powers of judicial review granted to the Supreme Court of India and the various High Courts under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The sort of remedies sought from courts in Public Interest Litigation go beyond mere award of damages to all affected groups, and have sometimes (controversially) gone on to include Court monitoring of the implementation of legislation and even the framing of guidelines in the absence of Parliamentary legislation.

However, this innovative jurisprudence did not help the victims of the Bhopal gas tragedy, who were unable to fully prosecute a class-action litigation (as understood in the American sense) against Union Carbide due to procedural rules that would make such litigation impossible to conclude and unwieldy to carry out. Instead, the Government of India exercised its right of parens patriae to appropriate all the claims of the victims and proceeded to litigate on their behalf, first in the New York courts and later, in the Indian courts. Ultimately, the matter was settled between the Union of India and Union Carbide (in a settlement overseen by the Supreme Court of India) for a sum of inr 7600000000 as a complete settlement of all claims of all victims for all time to come.

Public interest litigation has now broadened in scope to cover larger and larger groups of citizens who may be affected by government inaction. Examples of this trend include the conversion of all public transport in the city of Delhi from diesel engines to compressed natural gas engines on the basis of the orders of the Delhi High Court; the monitoring of forest use by the High Courts and the Supreme Court to ensure that there is no unjustified loss of forest cover; and the directions mandating the disclosure of assets of electoral candidates for the Houses of Parliament and State Assembly.

The Supreme Court has observed that the PIL has tended to become a means to gain publicity or obtain relief contrary to constitutionally valid legislation and policy. Observers point out that many High Courts and certain Supreme Court judges are reluctant to entertain PILs filed by non-governmental organizations and activists, citing concerns of separation of powers and parliamentary sovereignty.

Ireland
In Irish law, there is no such thing as a "class action" per se. Third-party litigation funding is prohibited under Irish law. Instead, there is the 'representative action' (gníomh ionadaíoch) or 'test case' (cás samplach). A representative action is "where one claimant or defendant, with the same interest as a group of claimants or defendants in an action, institutes or defends proceedings on behalf of that group of claimants or defendants."

Some test cases in Ireland have included:
 * the CervicalCheck cancer scandal
 * financial product misselling
 * Damages claims brought by Irish hauliers against price-fixing by European truck makers

Italy
Italy has class action legislation. Consumer associations can file claims on behalf of groups of consumers to obtain judicial orders against corporations that cause injury or damage to consumers. These types of claims are increasing, and Italian courts have allowed them against banks that continue to apply compound interest on retail clients' current account overdrafts. The introduction of class actions is on the government's agenda. On November 19, 2007, the Senato della Repubblica passed a class-action law in Finanziaria 2008, a financial document for the economy management of the government. From 10 December 2007, in order of Italian legislation system, the law is before the House and has to be passed also by the Camera dei Deputati, the second house of Italian Parliament, to become an effective law. In 2004, the Italian parliament considered the introduction of a type of class action, specifically in the area of consumer law. No such law has been enacted, but scholars demonstrated that class actions (azioni rappresentative) do not contrast with Italian principles of civil procedure. Class action is regulated by art. 140 bis of the Italian consumers' code and has been in force since 1 July 2009. On May 19, 2021, the reform of the Italian legal framework on class actions finally entered into force. The new rules, designed by Law n. 31 and published on April 18, 2019, (Law n. 31/2019), were initially intended to become effective on April 19, 2020, but had been delayed twice. The new rules on class actions are now included in the Italian Civil Procedure Code (ICPC). Overall, the new class action appears to be a viable instrument which, through a system of economic incentives, could overcome the rational apathy of small-claims holders and ensure redress.

Netherlands
Dutch law allows associations (verenigingen) and foundations (stichtingen) to bring a so-called collective action on behalf of other persons, provided they can represent the interests of such persons according to their by-laws (statuten) (section 3:305a Dutch Civil Code). All types of actions are permitted. This includes a claim for monetary damages, provided the event occurred after 15 November 2016 (pursuant to new legislation which entered into force 1 January 2020). Most class actions over the past decade have been in the field of securities fraud and financial services. The acting association or foundation may come to a collective settlement with the defendant. The settlement may also include – and usually primarily consists of – monetary compensation of damages. Such settlement can be declared binding for all injured parties by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (section 7:907 Dutch Civil Code). The injured parties have an opt-out right during the opt-out period set by the Court, usually 3 to 6 months. Settlements involving injured parties from outside The Netherlands can also be declared binding by the Court. Since US courts are reluctant to take up class actions brought on behalf of injured parties not residing in the US who have suffered damages due to acts or omissions committed outside the US, combinations of US class actions and Dutch collective actions may come to a settlement that covers plaintiffs worldwide. An example of this is the Royal Dutch Shell Oil Reserves Settlement that was declared binding upon both US and non-US plaintiffs.

Poland
"Pozew zbiorowy" or class action has been allowed under Polish law since July 19, 2010. A minimum of 10 persons, suing based on the same law, is required.

Russia
Collective litigation has been allowed under Russian law since 2002. Basic criteria are, like in the US, numerosity, commonality, and typicality.

Spain
Spanish law allows nominated consumer associations to take action to protect the interests of consumers. A number of groups already have the power to bring collective or class actions: certain consumer associations, bodies legally constituted to defend the "collective interest" and groups of injured parties.

Recent changes to Spanish civil procedure rules include the introduction of a quasi-class action right for certain consumer associations to claim damages on behalf of unidentified classes of consumers. The rules require consumer associations to represent an adequate number of affected parties who have suffered the same harm. Also, any judgment made by the Spanish court will list the individual beneficiaries or, if that is not possible, conditions that need to be fulfilled for a party to benefit from a judgment.

Switzerland
Swiss law does not allow for any form of class action. When the government proposed a new federal code of civil procedure in 2006, replacing the cantonal codes of civil procedure, it rejected the introduction of class actions, arguing that "[It] is alien to European legal thought to allow somebody to exercise rights on the behalf of a large number of people if these do not participate as parties in the action. ... Moreover, the class action is controversial even in its country of origin, the U.S., because it can result in significant procedural problems. ... Finally, the class action can be openly or discretely abused. The sums sued for are usually enormous, so that the respondent can be forced to concede, if they do not want to face sudden huge indebtness and insolvency (so-called legal blackmail)."

England and Wales
The Civil Procedure Rules of the courts of England and Wales came into force in 1999 and have provided for group litigation orders in limited circumstances (under Part 19.6 ). These have not been much used, with only two reported cases at the court of first instance in the first ten years after the Civil Procedure Rules took effect. However, a sectoral mechanism was adopted by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, taking effect on October 1, 2015. Under the provisions therein, opt-in or opt-out collective procedures may be certified for breaches of competition law. This is currently the closest mechanism to a class action in England and Wales.

United States
In the United States, the class representative, also called a lead plaintiff, named plaintiff, or representative plaintiff is the named party in a class-action lawsuit. Although the class representative is named as a party to the litigation, the court must approve the class representative when it certifies the lawsuit as a class action.

The class representative must be able to represent the interests of all the members of the class, by being typical of the class members and not having conflicts with them. He or she is responsible for hiring the attorney, filing the lawsuit, consulting on the case, and agreeing to any settlement. In exchange, the class representative may be entitled to compensation (at the court's discretion) out of the recovery amount.

Standing
In securities class actions that allege violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, "officers and directors are liable together with the corporation for material misrepresentations in the registration statement."

To have "standing" to sue under Section 11 of the 1933 Act in a class action, a plaintiff must be able to prove that he can "trace" his shares to the registration statement in question, as to which there is alleged a material misstatement or omission. In the absence of an ability to actually trace his shares, such as when securities issued at multiple times are held by the Depository Trust Company in a fungible bulk and physical tracing of particular shares may be impossible, the plaintiff may be barred from pursuing his claim for lack of standing.

Federal courts
In federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(d). Cases in federal courts are only allowed to proceed as class actions if the court has jurisdiction to hear the case, and if the case meets the criteria set out in Rule 23. In the vast majority of federal class actions, the class is acting as the plaintiff. However, Rule 23 also provides for defendant class actions.

Typically, federal courts are thought to be more favorable for defendants, and state courts more favorable for plaintiffs. Many class actions are filed initially in state court. The defendant will frequently try to remove the case to federal court. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 increases defendants' ability to remove state cases to federal court by giving federal courts original jurisdiction for all class actions with damages exceeding $5,000,000 exclusive of interest and costs. The Class Action Fairness Act contains carve-outs for, among other things, shareholder class actions covered by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and those concerning internal corporate governance issues (the latter typically being brought as shareholder derivative actions in the state courts of Delaware, the state of incorporation of most large corporations).

Jurisdiction
Class actions may be brought in federal court if the claim arises under federal law or if the claim falls under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Under § 1332(d)(2) the federal district courts have original jurisdiction over any civil action where the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and
 * any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant; or
 * any member of a class of plaintiffs is a foreign state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state and any defendant is a citizen of a State; or
 * any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State and any defendant is a foreign state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state.

Nationwide plaintiff classes are possible, but such suits must have a commonality of issues across state lines. This may be difficult if the civil law in the various states lack significant commonalities. Large class actions brought in federal court frequently are consolidated for pre-trial purposes through the device of multidistrict litigation (MDL). It is also possible to bring class actions under state law, and in some cases the court may extend its jurisdiction to all the members of the class, including out of state (or even internationally) as the key element is the jurisdiction that the court has over the defendant.

Class certification under Rule 23
For the case to proceed as a class action and bind absent class members, the court must certify the class under Rule 23 on a motion from the party wishing to proceed on a class basis. For a class to be certified, the moving party must meet all of the criteria listed under Rule 23(a), and at least one of the criteria listed under Rule 23(b).

The 23(a) criteria are referred to as numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. Numerosity refers to the number of people in the class. To be certified, the class has to have enough members that simply adding each of them as a named party to the lawsuit would be impractical. There is no bright-line rule to determine numerosity, but classes with hundreds of members are generally deemed to be sufficiently numerous. To satisfy commonality, there must be a common question of law and fact such that "determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke". The typicality requirement ensures that the claims or defenses of the named plaintiff are typical of those of everyone else in the class. Finally, adequacy requirement states that the named plaintiff must fairly and adequately represent the interests of the absent class members.

Rule 23(b)(3) allows class certification if "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy."

Notice and settlement
Due process requires in most cases that notice describing the class action be sent, published, or broadcast to class members. As part of this notice procedure, there may have to be several notices, first a notice allowing class members to opt out of the class, i.e. if individuals wish to proceed with their own litigation they are entitled to do so, only to the extent that they give timely notice to the class counsel or the court that they are opting out. Second, if there is a settlement proposal, the court will usually direct the class counsel to send a settlement notice to all the members of the certified class, informing them of the details of the proposed settlement.

State courts
Since 1938, many states have adopted rules similar to the FRCP. However, some states, like California, have civil procedure systems, which deviate significantly from the federal rules; the California Codes provide for four separate types of class actions. As a result, there are two separate treatises devoted solely to the complex topic of California class actions. As of March 2024, only Virginia and Massachusetts do not provide for any class actions. Others, such as New York, limit the types of claims that may be brought as class actions.

United States

 * Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth
 * Stanford Securities Class Action Clearinghouse
 * Class Action Lawsuits: A Legal Overview for the 115th Congress Congressional Research Service
 * Class Actions Seven Years After the Class Action Fairness Act: Hearing before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Second Session, June 1, 2012

Europe

 * Collective Redress in Europe

Ação coletiva

title: Class action


text:
Contempt of court

Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the crime of being disobedient to or disrespectful toward a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court. A similar attitude toward a legislative body is termed contempt of Parliament or contempt of Congress. The verb for "to commit contempt" is contemn (as in "to contemn a court order") and a person guilty of this is a contemnor or contemner.

There are broadly two categories of contempt: being disrespectful to legal authorities in the courtroom, or willfully failing to obey a court order. Contempt proceedings are especially used to enforce equitable remedies, such as injunctions. In some jurisdictions, the refusal to respond to subpoena, to testify, to fulfill the obligations of a juror, or to provide certain information can constitute contempt of the court.

When a court decides that an action constitutes contempt of court, it can issue an order in the context of a court trial or hearing that declares a person or organization to have disobeyed or been disrespectful of the court's authority, called "found" or "held" in contempt. That is the judge's strongest power to impose sanctions for acts that disrupt the court's normal process.

A finding of being in contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behavior, or publication of material or non-disclosure of material, which in doing so is deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial. A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine, jail or social service for someone found guilty of contempt of court, which makes contempt of court a process crime. Judges in common law systems usually have more extensive power to declare someone in contempt than judges in civil law systems.

In use today
Contempt of court is essentially seen as a form of disturbance that may impede the functioning of the court. The judge may impose fines and/or jail time upon any person committing contempt of court. The person is usually let out upon an agreement to fulfill the wishes of the court. Civil contempt can involve acts of omission. The judge will make use of warnings in most situations that may lead to a person being charged with contempt if the warnings are ignored. It is relatively rare that a person is charged for contempt without first receiving at least one warning from the judge. Constructive contempt, also called consequential contempt, is when a person fails to fulfill the will of the court as it applies to outside obligations of the person. In most cases, constructive contempt is considered to be in the realm of civil contempt due to its passive nature.

Indirect contempt is something that is associated with civil and constructive contempt and involves a failure to follow court orders. Criminal contempt includes anything that could be considered a disturbance, such as repeatedly talking out of turn, bringing forth previously banned evidence, or harassment of any other party in the courtroom, including committing an assault against the defendant in a criminal case. There have been instances during murder trials that grieving family members of murder victims have attacked the defendants in courtrooms in plain view of judges, bailiffs, and jurors, leading to said family members to be charged with contempt. Direct contempt is an unacceptable act in the presence of the judge (in facie curiae), and generally begins with a warning; it may be accompanied by the immediate imposition of a punishment.

Australia
In Australia, a judge may impose a fine or jail for contempt of court.

Belgium
A Belgian correctional or civil judge may immediately try the person for insulting the court.

Common law offense
In Canada, contempt of court is an exception to the general principle that all criminal offences are set out in the federal Criminal Code. Contempt of court is the only remaining common law offence in Canada.

Contempt of court includes the following behaviors:
 * Failing to maintain a respectful attitude, failing to remain silent or failing to refrain from showing approval or disapproval of the proceeding
 * Refusing or neglecting to obey a subpoena
 * Willfully disobeying a process or order of the court
 * Interfering with the orderly administration of justice or impairing the authority or dignity of the court
 * Failing to perform duties as an officer of the court
 * A sheriff or bailiff not executing a writ of the court forthwith or not making a return thereof

Canadian Federal courts
This section applies only to the Federal Court of Appeal and Federal Court.

Under Federal Court Rules, Rules 466, and Rule 467 a person who is accused of Contempt needs to be first served with a contempt order and then appear in court to answer the charges. Convictions can only be made when proof beyond a reasonable doubt is achieved.

If it is a matter of urgency or the contempt was done in front of a judge, that person can be punished immediately. Punishment can range from the person being imprisoned for a period of less than five years or until the person complies with the order or fine.

Tax Court of Canada
Under Tax Court of Canada Rules of Tax Court of Canada Act, a person who is found to be in contempt may be imprisoned for a period of less than two years or fined. Similar procedures for serving an order first is also used at the Tax Court.

Provincial courts
Different procedures exist for different provincial courts. For example, in British Columbia, a justice of the peace can only issue a summons to an offender for contempt, which will be dealt with by a judge, even if the offence was done in the face of the justice.

Hong Kong
Judges from the Court of Final Appeal, High Court, District Court along with members from the various tribunals and Coroner's Court all have the power to impose immediate punishments for contempt in the face of the court, derived from legislation or through common law:

 * Insult a judge or justice, witness or officers of the court
 * Interrupts the proceedings of the court
 * Interfere with the course of justice
 * Misbehaves in court (e.g., use of mobile phone or recording devices without permission)
 * Juror who leaves without permission of the court during proceedings
 * Disobeying a judgment or court order
 * Breach of undertaking
 * Breach of a duty imposed upon a solicitor by rules of court

The use of insulting or threatening language in the magistrates' courts or against a magistrate is in breach of section 99 of the Magistrates Ordinance (Cap 227) which states the magistrate can 'summarily sentence the offender to a fine at level 3 and to imprisonment for 6 months.'

In addition, certain appeal boards are given the statutory authority for contempt by them (e.g., Residential Care Home, Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation, Air Pollution Control, etc.). For contempt in front of these boards, the chairperson will certify the act of contempt to the Court of First Instance who will then proceed with a hearing and determine the punishment.

England and Wales
In England and Wales (a common law jurisdiction), the law on contempt is partly set out in case law (common law), and partly codified by the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Contempt may be classified as criminal or civil. The maximum penalty for criminal contempt under the 1981 Act is committal to prison for two years.

Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behaviour toward the judge or magistrates while holding the court, tending to interrupt the due course of a trial or other judicial proceeding, may be prosecuted as "direct" contempt. The term "direct" means that the court itself cites the person in contempt by describing the behaviour observed on the record. Direct contempt is distinctly different from indirect contempt, wherein another individual may file papers alleging contempt against a person who has willfully violated a lawful court order.

There are limits to the powers of contempt created by rulings of European Court of Human Rights. Reporting on contempt of court, the Law Commission commented that "punishment of an advocate for what he or she says in court, whether a criticism of the  judge  or  a  prosecutor,  amounts  to  an  interference  with  his  or  her  rights  under article 10 of the ECHR"  and that such limits must be "prescribed by law" and be "necessary in a democratic society", citing Nikula v Finland.

Criminal contempt
The Crown Court is a superior court according to the Senior Courts Act 1981, and Crown Courts have the power to punish contempt. The Divisional Court as part of the High Court has ruled that this power can apply in these three circumstances:

 * 1) Contempt "in the face of the court" (not to be taken literally; the judge does not need to see it, provided it took place within the court precincts or relates to a case currently before that court);
 * 2) Disobedience of a court order; and
 * 3) Breaches of undertakings to the court.

Where it is necessary to act quickly, a judge may act to impose committal (to prison) for contempt.

Where it is not necessary to be so urgent, or where indirect contempt has taken place the Attorney General can intervene and the Crown Prosecution Service will institute criminal proceedings on his behalf before a Divisional Court of the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales. In January 2012, for example, a juror who had researched information on the internet was jailed for contempt of court. Theodora Dallas, initially searching for the meaning of the term "grievous bodily harm", added search criteria which localised her search and brought to light another charge against the defendant. Because she then shared this information with the other jurors, the judge stated that she had compromised the defendant's right to a fair trial and the prosecution was abandoned.

Magistrates' courts also have powers under the 1981 Act to order to detain any person who "insults the court" or otherwise disrupts its proceedings until the end of the sitting. Upon contempt being admitted or proved the (invariably) District Judge (sitting as a magistrate) may order committal to prison for a maximum of one month, impose a fine of up to £2,500, or both.

It will be contempt to bring an audio recording device or picture-taking device of any sort into an English court without the consent of the court.

It will not be contempt according to section 10 of the Act for a journalist to refuse to disclose his sources, unless the court has considered the evidence available and determined that the information is "necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime".

Strict liability contempt
Under the Contempt of Court Act it is criminal contempt to publish anything which creates a real risk that the course of justice in proceedings may be seriously impaired. It only applies where proceedings are active, and the Attorney General has issued guidance as to when he believes this to be the case, and there is also statutory guidance. The clause prevents the newspapers and media from publishing material that is too extreme or sensationalist about a criminal case until the trial or linked trials are over and the juries have given their verdicts.

Section 2 of the Act defines and limits the previous common law definition of contempt (which was previously based upon a presumption that any conduct could be treated as contempt, regardless of intent), to only instances where there can be proved an intent to cause a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the administration of justice (i.e./e.g., the conduct of a trial).

Civil contempt
In civil proceedings there are two main ways in which contempt is committed:

 * 1) Failure to attend at court despite a summons requiring attendance. In respect of the High Court, historically a writ of latitat would have been issued, but now a bench warrant is issued, authorizing the tipstaff to arrange for the arrest of the individual, and imprisonment until the date and time the court appoints to next sit. In practice a groveling letter of apology to the court is sufficient to ward off this possibility, and in any event the warrant is generally "backed for bail"—i.e., bail will be granted once the arrest has been made and a location where the person can be found in future established.
 * 2) Failure to comply with a court order. A copy of the order, with a "penal notice"—i.e., notice informing the recipient that if they do not comply they are subject to imprisonment—is served on the person concerned. If, after that, they breach the order, proceedings can be started and in theory the person involved can be sent to prison. In practice this rarely happens as the cost on the claimant of bringing these proceedings is significant and in practice imprisonment is rarely ordered as an apology or fine are usually considered appropriate.

India
In India, contempt of court is of two types:

1. Civil contempt: Under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, civil contempt has been defined as wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.

2. Criminal contempt: Under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, criminal contempt has been defined as the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which:1. Scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court, or

2. Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding, or

3. Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.

United States
In United States jurisprudence, acts of contempt are generally divided into direct or indirect, and civil or criminal. Direct contempt occurs in the presence of a judge; civil contempt is "coercive and remedial" as opposed to punitive. In the United States, relevant statutes include and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42.

 * 1) Direct contempt is that which occurs in the presence of the presiding judge (in facie curiae) and may be dealt with summarily: the judge notifies the offending party that he or she has acted in a manner which disrupts the tribunal and prejudices the administration of justice. After giving the person the opportunity to respond, the judge may impose the sanction immediately.
 * 2) Indirect contempt occurs outside the immediate presence of the court and consists of disobedience of a court's prior order. Generally a party will be accused of indirect contempt by the party for whose benefit the order was entered. A person cited for indirect contempt is entitled to notice of the charge and an opportunity for hearing of the evidence of contempt and, since there is no written procedure, may or may not be allowed to present evidence in rebuttal.

Contempt of court in a civil suit is generally not considered to be a criminal offense, with the party benefiting from the order also holding responsibility for the enforcement of the order. However, some cases of civil contempt have been perceived as intending to harm the reputation of the plaintiff, or to a lesser degree, the judge or the court.

Sanctions for contempt may be criminal or civil. If a person is to be punished criminally, then the contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but once the charge is proven, then punishment (such as a fine or, in more serious cases, imprisonment) is imposed unconditionally. The civil sanction for contempt (which is typically incarceration in the custody of the sheriff or similar court officer) is limited in its imposition for so long as the disobedience to the court's order continues: once the party complies with the court's order, the sanction is lifted. The imposed party is said to "hold the keys" to their own cell, thus conventional due process is not required. In federal and most state courts, the burden of proof for civil contempt is clear and convincing evidence, a lower standard than in criminal cases.

In civil contempt cases there is no principle of proportionality. In Chadwick v. Janecka (3d Cir. 2002), a U.S. court of appeals held that H. Beatty Chadwick could be held indefinitely for his failure to produce $2.5 million as a state court ordered in a civil trial. Chadwick had been imprisoned for nine years at that time and continued to be held in prison until 2009, when a state court set him free after 14 years, making his imprisonment the longest on a contempt charge to date.

Civil contempt is only appropriate when the imposed party has the power to comply with the underlying order. Controversial contempt rulings have periodically arisen from cases involving asset protection trusts, where the court has ordered a settlor of an asset protection trust to repatriate assets so that the assets may be made available to a creditor. A court cannot maintain an order of contempt where the imposed party does not have the ability to comply with the underlying order. This claim when made by the imposed party is known as the "impossibility defense".

Contempt of court is considered a prerogative of the court, and "the requirement of a jury does not apply to 'contempts committed in disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command entered in any suit or action brought or prosecuted in the name of, or on behalf of, the United States. This stance is not universally agreed with by other areas of the legal world, and there have been many calls to have contempt cases to be tried by jury, rather than by judge, as a potential conflict of interest rising from a judge both accusing and sentencing the defendant. At least one Supreme Court justice has made calls for jury trials to replace judge trials on contempt cases.

The United States Marshals Service is the agency component that first holds all federal prisoners. It uses the Prisoner Population Management System /Prisoner Tracking System. The only types of records that are disclosed as being in the system are those of "federal prisoners who are in custody pending criminal proceedings." The records of "alleged civil contempors" are not listed in the Federal Register as being in the system leading to a potential claim for damages under The Privacy Act,.

News media in the United States
In the United States, because of the broad protections granted by the First Amendment, with extremely limited exceptions, unless the media outlet is a party to the case, a media outlet cannot be found in contempt of court for reporting about a case because a court cannot order the media in general not to report on a case or forbid it from reporting facts discovered publicly. Newspapers cannot be closed because of their content.

Criticism
There have been criticisms over the practice of trying contempt from the bench. In particular, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote in a dissent, "It is high time, in my judgment, to wipe out root and branch the judge-invented and judge-maintained notion that judges can try criminal contempt cases without a jury."

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Contempt of court


text:
Corroborating evidence

Corroborating evidence, also referred to as corroboration, is a type of evidence in lawful command.

Types and uses
Corroborating evidence tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming the proposition. For example, W, a witness, testifies that she saw X drive his automobile into a green car. Meanwhile, Y, another witness, corroborates the proposition by testifying that when he examined X's car, later that day, he noticed green paint on its fender. There can also be corroborating evidence related to a certain source, such as what makes an author think a certain way due to the evidence that was supplied by witnesses or objects.

Another type of corroborating evidence comes from using the Baconian method, i.e., the method of agreement, method of difference, and method of concomitant variations.

These methods are followed in experimental design. They were codified by Francis Bacon, and developed further by John Stuart Mill and consist of controlling several variables, in turn, to establish which variables are causally connected. These principles are widely used intuitively in various kinds of proofs, demonstrations, and investigations, in addition to being fundamental to experimental design.

In law, corroboration refers to the requirement in some jurisdictions, such as in Scots law, that any evidence adduced be backed up by at least one other source (see Corroboration in Scots law).

An example of corroboration
Defendant says, "It was like what he/she (a witness) said but...". This is Corroborative evidence from the defendant that the evidence the witness gave is true and correct.

Corroboration is not needed in certain instances. For example, there are certain statutory exceptions. In the Education (Scotland) Act, it is only necessary to produce a register as proof of lack of attendance. No further evidence is needed.

England and Wales
Perjury

See section 13 of the Perjury Act 1911.

Speeding offences

See section 89(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

Sexual offences

See section 32 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Confessions by mentally handicapped persons

See section 77 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Evidence of children

See section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Evidence of accomplices

See section 32 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

title: Corroborating evidence


text:
Cross-examination

In law, cross-examination is the interrogation of a witness by one's opponent. It is preceded by direct examination (known as examination-in-chief in Ireland, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, South Africa, India and Pakistan) and may be followed by a redirect (known as re-examination in the aforementioned countries). A redirect examination, performed by the attorney or pro se individual who performed the direct examination, clarifies the witness' testimony provided during cross-examination including any subject matter raised during cross-examination but not discussed during direct examination. Recross examination addresses the witness' testimony discussed in redirect by the opponent. Depending on the judge's discretion, opponents are allowed multiple opportunities to redirect and recross examine witnesses (this may vary by jurisdiction).

Variations by jurisdiction
In the United States federal courts, a cross-examining attorney is generally limited by Rule 611 of the Federal Rules of Evidence to the "subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the witness's credibility". The rule also permits the trial court, in its discretion, to "allow inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination". Many state courts do permit a lawyer to cross-examine a witness on matters not raised during direct examination, though California restricts cross-examination to "any matter within the scope of the direct examination". Similarly, courts in England, South Africa, Australia, and Canada allow a cross-examiner to exceed the scope of direct examination.

Since a witness called by the opposing party is presumed to be hostile, leading questions are allowed on cross-examination. A witness called by a direct examiner, on the other hand, may only be treated as hostile by that examiner after being permitted to do so by the judge, at the request of that examiner and as a result of the witness being openly antagonistic and/or prejudiced against the party that called them.

Affecting the outcome of jury trials
Cross-examination is a key component of a trial and the topic is given substantial attention during courses on trial advocacy. The opinions of a jury or judge are often changed if cross-examination casts doubt on the witness. On the other hand, a credible witness may reinforce the substance of their original statements and enhance the judge's or jury's belief. Though the closing argument is often considered the deciding moment of a trial, effective cross-examination wins trials.

Attorneys anticipate hostile witnesses' responses during pretrial planning, and often attempt to shape the witnesses' perception of the questions to draw out information helpful to the attorney's case. Typically during an attorney's closing argument, they will repeat any admissions made by witnesses that favor their case. In the United States, cross-examination is seen as a core part of the entire adversarial system of justice, in that it "is the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are tested." Another key component affecting a trial outcome is jury selection, in which attorneys will attempt to include jurors from whom they feel they can get a favorable response or at the least an unbiased fair decision. So while there are many factors affecting the outcome of a trial, the cross-examination of a witness will often influence an open-minded unbiased jury searching for the certainty of facts upon which to base their decision.

title: Cross-examination


text:
Talk:Corroborating evidence

An example of corroboration
I propose to delete the second (middle) paragraph of this section.

I think the example is poor, badly-written, badly punctuated, and hard to understand. It is replete with sentences that lack a verb. It is apparently describing evidence of a crime, but it's not clear what the crime is. And it is uncited (as is the entire section), and so is eligible for deletion. However I am not proposing to delete the entire section - just the middle paragraph (which is, admittedly, the bulk of the section).

Please provide a citation, which would (a) remove that ground for deletion, and (b) provide a source that could be used to improve the section. Ideally, please improve the section.

Living in urban area is more advantageous than living in rural area
debate 102.89.34.78 (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Corroborating evidence


text:
Christiania

Christiania may refer to:

Businesses and organizations

 * Christiania Bank, a former Norwegian bank
 * Christiania Theatre, formerly in Oslo, Norway
 * Christiania Norwegian Theatre, merged in 1863
 * Christiania Spigerverk, a former Norwegian steel company

Places

 * Christiania or Kristiania, official names of Oslo (1624–1924), nickname (from 1925) for the part of Oslo that was founded by King Christian IV
 * Christiania Islands, Antarctica
 * Christiania Township, Jackson County, Minnesota, U.S.
 * Freetown Christiania, or Christiania, a neighborhood in Copenhagen, Denmark

Other uses

 * Christiania (brachiopod), an extinct genus
 * Christiania RK, a rowing club from Oslo, Norway
 * Christiania SK, a former Norwegian Nordic skiing club

title: Christiania


text:
Charles d'Abancourt

Charles Xavier Joseph de Franque Ville d'Abancourt (4 July 1758 – 9 September 1792) was a French statesman, minister to Louis XVI.

Biography
D'Abancourt was born in Douai, and was the nephew of Charles Alexandre de Calonne. He was Louis XVI's last minister of war (July 1792), and organised the defence of the Tuileries Palace during the 10 August attack. Commanded by the Legislative Assembly to send away the Swiss Guards, he refused, and was arrested for treason to the nation and sent to Orléans to be tried.

At the end of August the Assembly ordered Abancourt and the other prisoners at Orléans to be transferred to Paris with an escort commanded by Claude Fournier, nicknamed l'Americain. At Versailles they learned of the massacres at Paris. Abancourt and his fellow-prisoners were murdered in cold blood during the 9 September massacres (9 September 1792) at Versailles. Fournier was unjustly charged with complicity in the crime.

title: Charles d'Abancourt


text:
Talk:Corvallis, Oregon

Rankings and recognition section
"About Corvallis URL accessed 11 May 2006" does not satisfy my reading of WP:RS. The five entries citing that reference must be deleted unless reliable sources can be found. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like a fine reference to me. What part of WP:RS do you think it violates? VegaDark 03:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I take another look at it I do see why there could be concerns. It says "rumor and fact" for the claims on that page.  Does that mean that it is both rumor and fact, or that mean some of the claims are rumors and some are facts?  I would say we should try and find a better reference for the things that is used as a reference for, but I wouldn't necessarily say that what is currently there should be deleted, at least not for a week or so after cite needed tags have been placed on the info. VegaDark 03:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * this link rehashes the same claims made on that page without stating it as possible rumors, hence would pass WP:RS. Odds are that they just got the info from that about Corvallis page in the first place though, but who knows. VegaDark 03:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that this list is not verifiable in that it is not published by a reputable publisher. I don't know anything about the editorial standards of "Visit Corvallis Oregon" or "Coho Cohousing" web sites and I doubt that many of my fellow editors do either. By way of contrast, I have more confidence in the Corvallis Gazette-Times and I think it qualifies as a reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines. Moreover, I deem the list to be a compilation based on published news sources, if indeed it is accurate. Consequently, we editors need to track down those sources and cite them with their dates of publication so that they can be verified. Please see WP:V, also. Cite tags don't seem appropriate to me since the items are cited. My opinion is that the article would benefit from shorter, but better sourced and more notable list. I think it is telling that so many of the organizations allegedly conferring recognition are redlinked. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Revisited
Is this section even encyclopedic? I think any relevant info should be merged with the rest of the article and the section deleted. The article needs a history section, which when written could include a mention that "Corvallis has recieved many awards over the years, including blahblahblah", listing the more notable ones and citing the sources. Thoughts? Katr67 20:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I added this section and I think everything that is sourced (which happens to be everything) should stay in the article, although I agree it would be better to merge the info into the body of the article. VegaDark 23:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Though it's not the best example (because the Eugene article needs a lot of cleanup), Corvallis is similar to Eugene, Oregon in that it could stand to have a Community or Culture section to address the unique (read: countercultural) aspects of the city, and some of the rankings (bikes, vegetariansim) info could go in there. As long as it's not written like a review, of course. Sections like that tend to attract a lot of POV and original research. Katr67 23:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, a lot needs to be written/rewritten, and hopefully the rankings section can be eliminated by the end if we can incorporate all the info to these sections. VegaDark 23:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Katr67 that it should be integrated. Also should "rankings" that are more than 5 years old be included? And shouldn't the OSU campus safety/beauty things go there and not on Corvallis? Aboutmovies 00:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Katr and AM. I don't think the specific rankings, or their sources, belong in the text of the article; something along the lines of "Corvallis has been considered, by various entities, to be among the top US cities for bicycling, doing busines, …" would be worthwhile, with a couple footnotes to support it. Also, yes, the OSU-specific items should be moved to that page. -Pete 01:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

After many years, I've simply nuked this section as unencyclopedic. Valfontis (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

More Photographs?
If any Wikipedian lives in Corvallis, is it possible that you could take some photographs that better represent what the town looks like apart from public buildings? Maybe some photos of the nature surrounding/included in the town, shots of long distance vistas, the main street(s), et cetera? Wowbobwow12 01:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I would still love to see a "main street" or downtown shot of Corvallis. Can anyone provide a photograph that gives a sense of what the town "feels" like? Thank you Wowbobwow12 (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits
Lest there be any doubts about the 2000 pop, the Census says 49,322. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Religion section
I think the new paragraph on religion should be deleted in its entirety. It is inaccurate and misleading, and it misstates the nearly three year old source it cites as a reference. It conflates statewide and national statistics from that reference.

I don't have an axe to grind. I think the statistic cited, if accurate, could be a plus or minus depending on the reader's point of view. But the statement is unsupported by the data cited.

John L. Barlow (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the section to better match the source. VegaDark (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

 * That is an improvement, but the source is not very reliable. What you have written is accurate, but what is encyclopedic about the entry?  There are countless studies on a number of topics that implicate Corvallis and Benton County, but should an encyclopedia entry focus on one particular one?

 * Hope you're enjoying law school--sometimes practice is so tiresome that I actually get nostalgic about the law school days!

 * John L. Barlow (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, we can only write about what we have sources to cite from. As of now, that's all we have about religion in Corvallis. It would indeed by nice to have many more sources to be able to draft a better and more comprehensive section, but that requires time that apparently nobody has been willing to put in yet. Until then, we might as well leave what information we do have, even if it is just one study's interpretation. That at least gives the reader some information on the topic, and perhaps they will, as you have, investigate the source themselves and make their own conclusions. As for law school, does anybody really enjoy law school? VegaDark (talk) 06:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

 * The only citation is over ten years old and no longer exists on the web. No subsequent study seems available, although the article asserts that it's done every ten years.  As currently written, the only function of this section seems to be to slam that segment of the population who alledgedly did report some religious affiliation (and of course we have no idea what percentage that truly is, since the link cited is broken).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.159.59.2 (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

 * I have resurrected the citation. Hope that helps.  —EncMstr (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Employers
I see that Agilent Technologies is still listed as a major employer. They haven't been in Corvallis for a number of years now. What used to be Agilent in Corvallis is now Marvell, and Aptina (a subsidiary of Micron for now).

C-Class Article
I saw that someone had listed Corvallis for request for being listed as a C-Class Article. I figured I would give my assesment of this and hope for others responces back and mave the article forward.

First thing straight from the criteria for the Start Class Article. An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and may require further reliable sources.

So here are things I see that fall in to this area.

Developing

 * History- The history section is in need of more developing as it is only 2 small paragraphs about it. Joseph C. Avery is mentioned as the founder of the town in 1845 or atleast settling there. the 1853 name change is mentioned along with the 1857 incorporation. Even the breif period of it being the territorial capital.What happened to Corvallis after 1857? did it instantly become the town we know today? Did it become a major logging hub, a transit hub? did it have anything to do with the riverboats like Albany or was it always a college town? The college would be a vital part of it history but if this is added be careful not to make it about the college as it has its own page to have that covered but noting its oragens might be good. Pretend you don't know anything about the town and you have to do a full page or 2 report on its history. Could you do that from what we have here?

 * Goverment/Politics This section is lack luster. I know Corvallis had a mayor that was female and the longest running mayor of the city and that it two members of the city council who are from the green party Green Party. Has that been updated since the last election (AKA is that curent)? We need more though, does it have a home rule charter? And is it council-Manager run? How many council memebers and how long do they and the mayor stay in office for each term? Where is the city hall do they have one? (On a side note some of the Rankings and recognitions stuff could be placed in here instead of the R&R section if it is related to the government.) Let us know about ow this city runs and what the government provides for us.

 * Education The education section is hard to make vary big in smaller towns but we could get a few more details. We know it has a higher education rate that is really good. Does it have public schools I would bet so but by reading this we would never know that? how many High schools? What is the name of the school district? Does it have its own wiki that could be linked here with details about the achools? how long has it been serving the community? what are the Student populations of LBCC and OSU? moght be good information

 * Infrastructure this could use some minor detailing like when the bridge was built. I know it is on the page for it but a minor note about it other then just its name under the bridge section would be good. Some blurb about the Corvallis ariport to again I know it is in its page but a small catcher so people will look deeper in to it?

 * LISTS!!!! Listes aren't really what we needed at this point. They have given us details we need but need developed in to more formal statements now. The list of famus people can be put in to list of notable people from corvallis that is linked and this section can be developed in to statements about corvallis and it long list of people.

for example: With Oregon State University located in Corvallis it has a long history of residents becoming NFL players starting with (First NFL players name from Corvallis) back in 19XX leading through a long line of players such as (Name A), (Name B), (Name C), even including (Most famus Player from Corvallis).

just a thought on that something that would make it less a list and more a statement providing a bit more detail to it. makes it better to read.

 * Rankings and recognition this section has been mentioned before and should be removed from here. Alot of this stuff could be moved to the right area

Elample: -1994: OSU named "Safest Pac-10 Campus" (University of Southern California study)[43] Should be moved to the OSU page if at all is it still the safest otherwise this is not relivent. At one time L.A. was safe those days have passed so not really of not anymore if that is the case.

-2009: In 2009, Corvallis High School won $20,000 in sustainability contest "America's Most Eco-Friendly School". Move to school district page

-2008: On February 18, 2008, Corvallis was named the fifth smartest city in America by Forbes Online Magazine. move to education section and work it in

They can all be worked in to make it seem a bit better. Also keep it encyclopedic. it is not a competioning to prove one city better then another.

reliable sources
I'll keep it quick here.

Sections missing some sourcing: '''*Infrastructure
 * Notable works of fiction - Could use a little sourcing
 * Notable people - nothing is sourced. Though I have no reason to dispute any of them I don't have and proof they are related to this town either.
 * Sports'''

Now on to the things that look like it is C-Class. straight from the criteria for the C-Class Article. ''The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.''

Substantial

 * Geography it is small but it is a hard section to make really large so I would say it will pass for C-Class
 * Demographics it is got enough detail to pass but lets get the 2010 stuff added in too.
 * Economy again hard to get on a small town it will pass for C-Class but lets keep moving forward.
 * Infrastructure though there are a few areas that need work it has a realy good start to it.

Good sourcing

 * Rankings and recognition lots of good sources but lets get these shifted to there needed locations.
 * Water/Greenpower got good amount of sources for there areas too.
 * Arts and culture has good sourcing but lets get it off the list and in to a good set of statements about them. Let us really know Corvallis.
 * Economy Good to go on sources.
 * Demographics got some good sources here too. needs the 2010 stuff as mentioned before.
 * History got the sources for the info that is there.

conclusion
After reviewing all this I would say it is borardering on the C-Class but needs those thing to be fixed up a bit first. with a few people and a few days of fixing it up it will ne ready in my opinion. Let me know what you all thing. MathewDill (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Corvallis, Oregon