Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
27 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1993–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hamilton v. Ohio Savings Bankgreen2 sentences2012No. 21828, 2004-Ohio-4971 , ¶ 23-24 (typicality satisfied if representative’s claim arises from same course of conduct as other class members and rests upon same legal theory); Hamilton at 77-78 (“[A] representative is deemed adequate so long as his or her interest is not antagonistic to that of other class members.”). 2012No. 20392, 2001 WL 688896 , *3 (June 20, 2001) (“Generally, evidence of a class of more than forty people satisfies the numerosity requirement for class 10 certification.”); Hamilton at 77 (commonality prerequisite satisfied if a “common liability issue” exists); Rimedio v. SummaCare, Inc., 9th Dist. | 2 | 4 |
Warner v. Waste Management, Inc.green2 sentences2011Because there was no evidence presented as to the remaining factors, the court will not address them at this time. {¶ 26} Because the proposed class exceeds 40 members, as stated in Warner, 36 Ohio St.3d 91 , 521 N.E.2d 1091 , and because at least two of the five factors stated in Lichoff weigh in favor of class certification, the court finds that the plaintiff has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the numerosity requirement has been satisfied. 2011Because there was no evidence presented as to the remaining factors, the court will not address them at this time. {¶ 26} Because the proposed class exceeds 40 members, as stated in Warner, 36 Ohio St.3d 91 , 521 N.E.2d 1091 , and because at least two of the five factors stated in Lichoff weigh in favor of class certification, the court finds that the plaintiff has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the numerosity requirement has been satisfied. | 1 | 17 |
Boggs v. Divested Atomic Corp.green1 sentence2025C-240402 _ C-240407 rests on the impracticability of joining potential class members." Boggs v. Divested Atomic Corp., 141 F.R.D. 58, 63 (S.D. | 1 | 1 |
Comcast Corp. v. Behrendgreen1 sentence2022Id. at ¶ 12. 1 OSU concedes the numerosity requirement is satisfied as to both the class and subclass as certified. {¶ 16} Class certification under Civ.R. 23(B)(3) requires the trial court to make the following additional findings: "[T]he questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members" and, second, "that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy." This inquiry requires a court to balance questions common among class members with any dissimilariti | 1 | 1 |
MidFirst Bank v. Billergreen1 sentence2022Co., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-980116, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 4923 , *7 (Oct. 23, 1998) (“Because we hold that there was no abuse of discretion with respect to the application of the numerosity requirement, we do not address the trial court's findings relating to commonality, typicality, or superiority, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.”); Adair v. Dayton Walther Corp., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 13429, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 573 , *2 (Feb. 4, 1993) (“We are not required to pass specifically on each of [the class action] tests if, with respect to but one, we affirm the judgment of the tri | 1 | 1 |
Hazel Golden v. City of Columbus Cheryl Roberto, Director of Public Utilities for the City of Columbusgreen1 sentence2012Golden v. Columbus, 404 F.3d 950, 965-966 (6th Cir.2005). {¶18} On appeal, appellants contend that the trial court erred in finding that “plaintiffs[ sic] only support for their [numerosity] position is the allegation in their complaint that faxes were sent to ‘forty-one or more recipients within the 216 and 440 area codes.’” Appellants contend that the numerosity requirement has been satisfied because (1) the amended complaint substantively alleges that Saratoga sent fax advertisements to “forty-one or more” recipients within the 216 or 440 telephone area codes, which must be taken as true, ( | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shaver v. Standard Oil Co.
green
2 sentences1993By providing standardized lease agreements which were uniformly imposed on the dealers by Standard, appellant met the threshold requirement of commonality.” (Citations omitted.) Id., 68 Ohio App.3d at 795 , 589 N.E.2d at 1355-1356 . *57 On remand appellee did not argue that appellant was not a member of the class, that the class was not identifiable, that appellant failed to demonstrate the numerosity requirement or that there was no compliance with the commonality requirement. 1993By providing standardized lease agreements which were uniformly imposed on the dealers by Standard, appellant met the threshold requirement of commonality.” (Citations omitted.) Id., 68 Ohio App.3d at 795 , 589 N.E.2d at 1355-1356 . *57 On remand appellee did not argue that appellant was not a member of the class, that the class was not identifiable, that appellant failed to demonstrate the numerosity requirement or that there was no compliance with the commonality requirement. | 4 | 1993–2001 |
Ojalvo v. Board of Trustees
green
2 sentences2001Currey v. Shell Oil Co., supra; Burrell v. Sol Bergman Estate Jewelers, Inc. supra; cf., Ojalvo v. Bd. of Trustees of Ohio State Univ., supra; Shaver v. Standard Oil Co. (1990), 68 Ohio App.3d 783 . 1999Currey v. Shell Oil Co., supra ; Burrell v. Sol Bergman Estate Jewelers, Inc., supra ; cf., Ojalvo v. Bd. of Trustees of Ohio State Univ., supra ; Shaver v. Standard Oil Co. (1990), 68 Ohio App.3d 783 . | 3 | 1999–2001 |
Thomas A. EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. PIPE & FOUNDRY COMPANY, Etc., Defendant-Appellee
green
2 sentences2008Id. at ¶ 19, citing Evans v. U.S. Pipe Foundry Co. (C.A.11, 1983), 696 F.2d 925 , 930 . *Page 11 {¶ 32} Here, appellant claims that only eight calls were made to its customer care center making the same complaint concerning the front bumper of a Jetta manufactured in the years 1999 through 2002. 2002Evans v. U.S. Pipe Foundry Co. (C.A.11, 1983), 696 F.2d 925 , 930 . {¶ 27} Appellants' first assignment of error argues that the trial court erroneously found that appellees satisfied the numerosity requirement of Civ.R. 23(A)(1). | 2 | 2002–2008 |
Burrell v. Sol Bergman Estate Jewelers, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005Burrell v. Sol Bergman Estate Jewelers, Inc. (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 766 , 771 . {¶ 35} The magistrate finds that relators have failed to meet their burden for the numerosity requirement under Civ.R. 23(A). 1999Burrell, supra at 773 ; cf., Pusey v. Mahoning Valley Memorial Park, supra. The trial court's careful analysis after an oral hearing of the facts, the evidence, and the applicable legal standards as set forth in its opinion and order fails to reveal that an arbitrary, unreasonable or unconscionable attitude led to its decision to deny appellant's motion for class certification; therefore, this court cannot find the trial court abused its discretion when it determined appellant failed to meet the numerosity requirement of Civ.R. 23 (A) (1). | 2 | 1999–2005 |
Berdysz v. Boyas Excavating, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025Berdysz, 2017-Ohio-530 at ¶ 26 , citing Warner, 36 Ohio St. 3d at 97 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Miller v. Painters Supply & Equip. Co.
green
1 sentence2012Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Siding & Insulation Co. v. Beachwood Hair Clinic, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012These Family Physicians are made easily identifiable by common commercial data bases, including Info USA, and its derivatives as well as data bases made available by the Ohio Academy of Physicians. {¶21} We find that these statements do not establish any facts that would support or withstand appellants’ burden of proving the numerosity requirement — that joinder of all class members is impracticable. {¶22} Appellants direct this court to consider the holding and analysis in Siding & Insulation Co. v. Beachwood Hair Clinic, Inc., N.D.Ohio No. CV-1074, 2012 WL 262556 (Jan. 30, 2012). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Currey v. Shell Oil Co.
green
2 sentences2005Id. {¶ 37} With respect to the numerosity requirement, analysis begins with the observation that the proposed class description includes the 39 administrative claimants before PERB who did not join with the 12 who filed this action, as well as any other potential claimants who were not among the 51 who brought the administrative action before PERB. 2005Currey v. Shell Oil Co. (1996), 112 Ohio App.3d 312 , 318 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Basile v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
green
1 sentence2004Ohio 1985), 105 F.R.D. 506 , 508 . {¶ 16} The Supreme Court of Ohio addressed the numerosity requirement, noting that courts have not made exact specifications on the size limits for a class action. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
In re Three Mile Island Litigation
green
1 sentence1996A similar issue concerning the numerosity requirement arose in In re Three Mile Island Litigation (M.D.Pa.1982), 95 F.R.D. 164 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Marks v. C.P. Chemical Co.
green
2 sentences1996Marks, supra, 31 Ohio St.3d at 202 , 31 OBR at 399-400, 509 N.E.2d at 1252-1253 . 1996Marks, supra, 31 Ohio St.3d at 202 , 31 OBR at 399-400, 509 N.E.2d at 1252-1253 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.