that an excessive remission of taxes-there, the combination of the exemption with the certificates is an export bounty within the meaning of the statute.

As the court below noted, "[i]t is a maxim, not to be disregarded, that general expressions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used.'" 64 C. C. P. A., at 134, 562 F. 2d, at 1213, quoting Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 399 (1821). No one argued in Downs that a nonexcessive remission of taxes, standing alone, would have constituted a bounty on exportation, and indeed that issue was not presented on the facts of the case. It must also be remembered, of course, that the Court did affirm the Secretary's decision, and that decision rested on the conclusion that a bounty had been paid only to the extent that the remission exceeded the taxes otherwise due. In light of all these circumstances, the isolated statement in Downs relied upon by petitioner cannot be dispositive here. The judgment of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals is, accordingly,

Affirmed.

Syllabus

COOPERS & LYBRAND v. LIVESAY ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 76-1836. Argued March 22, 1978-Decided June 21, 1978

Respondents, who had purchased securities in reliance on a prospectus, brought this action on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated purchasers, alleging that petitioner accounting firm had violated the federal securities laws. The District Court first certified the action as a class action under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23, and then, after further proceedings, decertified the class. Respondents then filed a notice of appeal pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1291, under which courts of appeals have jurisdiction of appeals from all "final decisions" of the district courts except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court. After examining the amount of respondents' claims in relation to their financial resources and the probable cost of the litigation, the Court of Appeals concluded that they would not pursue their claims individually. On the basis of the "death knell" doctrine (which assumes that without the incentive of a possible group recovery the individual plaintiff may find it economically imprudent to pursue his lawsuit to a final judgment and then seek appellate review of an adverse class determination), the Court of Appeals held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and reversed the District Court's order decertifying the class. Respondents contend in this Court that an order denying class certification is appealable under both the "death knell" doctrine and the "collateral order" exception articulated in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541. Held:

1. The "collateral order" exception does not apply to a prejudgment order denying class certification because such an order is subject to revision in the District Court, Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23 (c) (1); involves considerations that are "enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising the plaintiff's cause of action," Mercantile Nat. Bank v. Langdeau, 371 U. S. 555, 558; and is subject to effective review after final judgment at the behest of the named plaintiff or intervening class members. United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald, 432 U. S. 385. Pp. 468469.

2. Nor does the "death knell" doctrine support appellate jurisdiction of a prejudgment order denying class certification. Pp. 469-476.

(a) The formulation of an appealability rule that turns on the

amount of the plaintiff's claim is plainly a legislative, not a judicial, function. Pp. 472–473.

(b) The alternative approach to the "death knell" rule that is based on a thorough study of the possible impact of the class order on the fate of the litigation would have a seriously debilitating effect on the administration of justice. The district court would have to take evidence, entertain argument, and make findings, which the court of appeals would have to review simply to determine whether a discretionary class determination is subject to appellate review, with the possibility of remand for further factual development. Further appeals from adverse rulings on other grounds could likewise be anticipated. Pp. 473–474.

(c) Perhaps the principal vice of the doctrine is that it authorizes indiscriminate interlocutory review of the trial judge's decisions, circumventing restrictions imposed by the Interlocutory Appeals Act of 1958. Pp. 474 475.

(d) The doctrine favors only plaintiffs even though the class issue will often be critically important to defendants as well. P. 476.

(e) Allowing appeals as a matter of right from nonfinal orders that turn on the facts of a particular case thrusts appellate courts indiscriminately into the trial process, thus defeating a vital purpose of the final-judgment rule of maintaining the appropriate relationship between the respective courts. P. 476.

550 F.2d 1106, reversed.

STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Thomas C. Walsh argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Veryl L. Riddle, John J. Hennelly, Jr., and Harris J. Amhowitz.

Melvyn I. Weiss argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Lawrence Milberg, Jared Specthrie, and Richard L. Ross.

MR. JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court. The question in this case is whether a district court's determination that an action may not be maintained as a class action pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23 is a "final decision"

within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 12911 and therefore appealable as a matter of right. Because there is a conflict in the Circuits over this issue, we granted certiorari and now hold that such an order is not appealable under § 1291.

Petitioner, Coopers & Lybrand, is an accounting firm that certified the financial statements in a prospectus issued in connection with a 1972 public offering of securities in Punta Gorda Isles for an aggregate price of over $18 million. Respondents purchased securities in reliance on that prospectus. In its next annual report to shareholders, Punta Gorda restated the earnings that had been reported in the prospectus for 1970 and 1971 by writing down its net income for each year by over $1 million. Thereafter, respondents sold their Punta Gorda securities and sustained a loss of $2,650 on their investment.

Respondents filed this action on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated purchasers. They alleged that petitioner and other defendants had violated various sections of

3

1 "The courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States . . . except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court."

2 Compare Hackett v. General Host Corp., 455 F. 2d 618 (CA3 1972), cert. denied, 407 U. S. 925; King v. Kansas City Southern Industries, Inc., 479 F. 2d 1259 (CA7 1973) (holding that such an order is not immediately appealable under § 1291), with Hartmann v. Scott, 488 F. 2d 1215 (CA8 1973); Ott v. Speedwriting Pub. Co., 518 F. 2d 1143 (CA6 1975); Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 370 F. 2d 119 (CA2 1966), cert. denied, 386 U. S. 1035 (holding that such an order is immediately appealable under § 1291).

The other defendants, Punta Gorda and several of its officers and directors, also filed a petition for writ of certiorari in this Court. Punta Gorda Isles, Inc. v. Livesay, No. 76-1837. After we granted certiorari in this case and No. 76-1837, 434 U. S. 954, the parties entered into a tentative settlement agreement. Respondents and petitioners in No. 76-1837 agreed to dismiss that petition; petitioner in this case, however, did not stipulate to dismissal of its petition. In view of the tentative nature of the settlement, this case is not moot.

the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The District Court first certified, and then, after further proceedings, decertified the class.

Respondents did not request the District Court to certify its order for interlocutory review under 28 U. S. C. § 1292 (b). Rather, they filed a notice of appeal pursuant to § 1291. The Court of Appeals regarded its appellate jurisdiction as depending on whether the decertification order had sounded the "death knell" of the action. After examining the amount of respondents' claims in relation to their financial resources and the probable cost of the litigation, the court concluded that they would not pursue their claims individually.' The Court

• §§ 11, 12 (2) and 17 (b) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U. S. C. §§ 77k, 771 (2), and 77q (b) (1976 ed.), and § 10 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U. S. C. § 78j (b) (1976 ed.).

$ Section 1292 (b) provides:

“When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order. The Court of Appeals may thereupon, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order, if application is made to it within ten days after the entry of the order: Provided, however, That application for an appeal hereunder shall not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge or the Court of Appeals or a judge thereof shall so order."

* Respondents also petitioned for a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to recertify the class. Since the Court of Appeals accepted appellate jurisdiction, it dismissed the petition for a writ of mandamus.

7 "Plaintiffs, both of whom are employed, have an aggregate yearly gross income of $26,000. Their total net worth is approximately $75,000, but only $4,000 of this sum is in cash. The remainder consists of equity in their home and investments.

"As of December 1974 plaintiffs had already incurred expenses in excess of $1,200 in connection with this lawsuit. Plaintiffs' new counsel has estimated expenses of this lawsuit to be $15,000. The nature of this case will require extensive discovery, much of which must take place in Florida,