In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities Litigation (2003)
green
· 67 citation events
across 8 courts.
Showing the 22 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200320142026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2003)
This “adequacy of representation” analysis “encompasses two separate inquiries: (1) whether any substantial conflicts of interest exist between the representatives and the class; and (2) whether the representatives will adequately prosecute the action.” In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities Litigation, 213 F.R.D. 447, 460-461 (N.D.Ala.2003).
green
Thompson v. Relationserve Media, Inc. (2010)
In such a situation, the named representatives cannot ‘vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel.’ ”) (quoting In re HealthSouth, 213 F.R.D. 447, 461-62 (N.D.Ala.2003)).
green
Wendell Grimes v. Fairfield Resorts, Inc. (2007)
Litigation, 213 F.R.D. 447, 461 (N.D.Ala.2003)).
green
In Re Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. Securities Litigation (2007)
Thus, the adequacy of representation analysis involves two inquiries: “(1) whether any substantial conflicts of interest exist between the representatives and the class, and (2) whether the representatives will adequately prosecute the action.” Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 350 F.3d 1181, 1189 (11th Cir.2003) (quoting In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities Litig., 213 F.R.D. 447, 460-461 (N.D.Ala.2003)).
green
In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation (2004)
Litig., 213 F.R.D. 447, 460-61 (N.D.Ala.2003)). a.
green
In Re: LoanCare Data Security Breach Litigation (2025)
Litig., 213 F.R.D. 447, 461 (N.D.
green
Kuhr v. Mayo Clinic Jacksonville (2020)
The “adequacy of representation” analysis requires two separate inquiries: “‘(1) whether any substantial conflicts of interest exist between the representative and the class; and (2) whether the representatives will adequately prosecute the action.’” See Valley Drug Co., 350 F.3d at 1189 (quoting In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities Litigation, 213 F.R.D. 447, 460-61 (N.D.
green
Bowe v. Public Storage (2015)
Litig., 213 F.R.D. 447, 460-61 (N.D.
green
Schojan v. Papa Johns International, Inc. (2014)
Litig., 213 F.R.D. 447, 460-61 (N.D.Ala.2003)).
green
Aranaz v. Catalyst Pharmaceutical Partners Inc. (2014)
Litig., 213 F.R.D. 447, 460-461 (N.D.Ala.2003)).
green
Stalley v. ADS Alliance Data Systems, Inc. (2013)
Litig., 213 F.R.D. 447, 460-61 (N.D.Ala.2003)).
green
Thorne v. Accounts Receivable Management, Inc. (2012)
Litig., 213 F.R.D. 447, 460-61 (N.D.Ala.2003)).
Litig., 213 F.R.D. 447, 460-461 (N.D.Ala. 2003)); see also Griffin v. Carlin, 755 F.2d 1516, 1533 (11th Cir.1985) (“The adequate representation requirement involves questions of whether plaintiffs’ counsel are qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation, and of whether plaintiffs have interests antagonistic to those of the rest of the class.”).
green
In re Florida Cement & Concrete Antitrust Litigation (2012)
This “adequacy of representation” analysis “encompasses two separate inquiries: (1) whether any substantial conflicts of interest exist between the representatives and the class; and (2) whether the representatives will adequately prosecute the action.” In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities Litigation, 213 F.R.D. 447, 460-61 (N.D.Ala.2003).
Defendants rely on In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities Litigation, 213 F.R.D. 447, 459-60 (N.D.Ala.2003), in which the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama held that certain lead plaintiffs were atypical because they acquired their interest in the security at issue automatically pursuant to a merger between their employer and another company, as opposed to making a purchase.
green
Kelecseny v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. (2009)
This “adequacy of representation” analysis “encompasses two separate inquiries: (1) whether any substantial conflicts of interest exist between the representatives and the class; and (2) whether the representatives will adequately prosecute the action.” In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities Litigation, 213 F.R.D. 447, 460-461 (N.D.Ala. 2003).
green
In re Healthsouth Corp. Securities Litigation (2009)
Litig., 213 F.R.D. 447, 460-461 (N.D.Ala.2003)); see also Griffin v. Carlin, 755 F.2d 1516, 1533 (11th Cir.1985) (“The adequate representation requirement involves questions of whether plaintiffs’ counsel are qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation, and of whether plaintiffs have interests antagonistic to those of the rest of the class.”).
green
Cohen v. Implant Innovations, Inc. (2008)
Litig., 213 F.R.D. 447, 460-461 (N.D.Ala.2003)).
A conflict is “fundamental” when it goes to the specific issues in controversy, id. at 326-27, or where, as here, some plaintiffs claim to have been harmed by the same conduct that benefited other members of the class, preventing the named representatives from “vigorously prosecuting] the interests of the class through qualified counsel.” Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 350 F.3d 1181, 1189 (11th Cir.2003) (citing In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities Litigation…
green
In re Recoton Corp. Securities Litigation (2006)
Litig., 213 F.R.D. 447, 462 (N.D.Ala.2003) (stating “the two district court cases within the Eleventh Circuit that have addressed these issues have declined to follow Seagate II.”).
Litig., 213 F.R.D. 447, 462 (N.D.Ala.2003); David J.
green
In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation (2004)
Litig., 213 F.R.D. 447, 460-61 (N.D.Ala.2003)). “[I]f substantial conflicts of interest are determined to exist among a class, class certification is inappropriate.” Id.