Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Dow Chemical Company v. Stephenson

Docket No.: 02-271
Certiorari Granted: Nov 4 2002
Argued: February 26, 2003
Decided: June 9, 2003

Topics:

Judicial Power, Article I, Due Process, EPA, First Amendment, Sixth Amendment, abuse of discretion, habeas, habeas corpus, judicial review, murder, patent, qualified immunity, res judicata, sentencing guidelines, stare decisis

PartyNames: Dow Chemical Company, et al. v. Daniel Raymond Stephenson, et al.
Petitioner: Dow Chemical Company, et al.
Respondent: Daniel Raymond Stephenson, et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Citation: CA 2, 273 F.3d 249. QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether absent class members are pr ecluded from relitigating the issue ofadequacy of representation through a collate ral attack on a class settlement, after class members had a full opportunity to op t out, object, and appeal, and after boththe trial court and the court of appeals, in the course of appr oving the settlement, expressly determined that the class representatives adequately represented the entire class. 2. Whether, if collateral attack is per missible, the "adequacy of representation"issue is properly determined as of the time of the original litigation or in light of
Supreme Court Docket

Dow Chemical Company, et al.
v.
Daniel Raymond Stephenson, et al.
539 U.S. 111 (2003)
Question:

Does the 1984 Agent Orange settlement preclude plaintiffs, who allege that they were inadequately represented in the prior litigation, from asserting claims?

Dow Chemical Company v. Stephenson
ORAL ARGUMENT

February 26, 2003

Holding: vacated and remanded
Decision: Decision: 8 votes for Dow Chemical Company, 0 vote(s) against
Recused: JUSTICE STEVENS
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)