← All Authorities
United States Leading Case claim forms

Phillips Petroleum Co v Shutts

472 U.S. 797 (1985)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtUS Supreme Court
Year1985
StatusBinding authority

Summary

A state court may exercise jurisdiction over absent plaintiff class members provided they receive adequate notice, opportunity to opt out, and adequate representation.

Key Principle

A state may exercise jurisdiction over absent plaintiff class members if they receive notice, an opportunity to opt out, and adequate representation.

Area of Law

procedure

Related Cases

Getswift Ltd v Webb (2022) 276 CLR 553

High Court of Australia held there is no power to make a common fund order in favour of litigation funders at the interlocutory stage of a class action.

UBS AG v Tyne (2018) 265 CLR 77

Anshun estoppel bars relitigation where it was unreasonable not to raise the issue in earlier proceedings; re-litigation may also constitute abuse of process.

Palmer v Ayres (2017) 259 CLR 478

High Court of Australia held the reflective loss principle (Prudential Assurance rule) does not apply in Australia, permitting shareholders to recover losses independently of the company.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Phillips Petroleum Co v Shutts and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Phillips Petroleum Co v Shutts