Also known as: inconsistent adjudications · varying adjudications · inconsistent verdicts · conflicting judgments
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural risk arising when separate actions by or against individual class members would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class. The risk justifies certification of a mandatory class under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) to avoid subjecting that party to conflicting court orders.
Hundreds of patients received the same cardiac device from Meridian Health Network and CardioTech. Some patients filed suits seeking immediate removal while others sought orders barring removal absent further testing. Separate adjudications would force Meridian and CardioTech to follow incompatible commands about the same devices for similarly situated patients.
Shareholders brought separate suits against a brokerage over odd-lot trading fees. One court ordered the brokerage to refund fees while another required continued collection under a different interpretation of the same rules. The brokerage faced incompatible obligations about how to treat identical customer accounts.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Smokers filed suits against tobacco companies seeking orders to disclose addiction risks. One court required broad warnings while another limited disclosures to specific products. The companies would have to follow contradictory standards of conduct toward the same class of consumers.
Employees sued Wal-Mart over uniform store policies on breaks and wages. Separate suits produced one order mandating company-wide changes and another permitting local variations. Wal-Mart faced incompatible standards about how to apply the same policies to class members.
Members of a fraternal organization sued over benefit calculations. One court required payments under one formula while another imposed a different calculation for the same class. The organization faced incompatible standards of conduct toward absent members.
Former employees sued General Motors seeking enforcement of a plant-closing agreement. One court ordered specific performance while another permitted different compliance terms. General Motors faced incompatible obligations about how to treat the same group of workers.
The risk supports certification when separate suits would impose incompatible standards of conduct on the defendant. Courts examine whether different outcomes would force the defendant to follow contradictory commands about the same conduct toward class members.
Supporting sources
No. The rule addresses the substantial risk that separate actions will produce incompatible standards. A court may certify when the pending suits create a realistic prospect of conflicting orders even if none have yet been entered.
Supporting sources
The risk focuses on whether separate judgments would subject the defendant to unworkable conflicting obligations. Predominance instead weighs whether common questions outweigh individual ones for a damages class. The two inquiries serve distinct certification purposes.
Supporting sources
No. Variation in damages does not defeat certification when the core concern is the risk of incompatible standards of conduct for the defendant. The rule targets conflicting obligations rather than uniformity of relief amounts.
Supporting sources
…could file indemnity or contribution actions against the Scottish defendants, it believed that there was a significant risk of inconsistent verdicts.[^maj-7] The District Court concluded that the relevant public interests also pointed strongly towards dismissal. The court determined that Pennsylvania law would apply to Piper and…