Basically, what the 25 pages of the majority opinion say is that the plaintiffs must provide some proof of each prerequisite, beyond mere pleading-level assertion, but the trial court should not engage in a full analysis of the merits at the certification stage.

So the case seems like the sort of standard class action opinion that will bore your average torts law student, until you get into the multiple concurrences and dissents. As I have mentioned previously, there is a lot of tension on the Michigan Supreme Court, and multiple issues come out in this case. First, Justice Young takes the majority to task for ignoring precedent, which is a retrun volley for similar criticisms aimed at the former conservative majority over the past decade. Then, Justice Kelly responds with a defense of her and her colleagues' votes in the cases criticized by Justice Young.

Finally, we have Justice Weaver defending her decision not to recuse herself in the case despite her ownership of Dow Chemical stock. This issue is not just a standard recusal decision because the recusal standards have been a white hot issue at the Court for years now, with Justice Weaver being highly critical of the previous majority in other cases and also critical of the lack of certain rules for recusal. Justice Weaver notified the parties in this case of her stock ownership and Justice Young responded with his own letter to the parties and then followed-up with an opinion responding to Justice Weaver's opinion regarding her recusal decision. In a nutshell, a real mess, and grist for the legal gossip mill.

So, not your average class certification case after all. I mean, you still might need to be a legal geek to get titillated by this sort of stuff, but hey, if you're reading this blog, you know who and what you are, so go read the opinions. You know you want to.