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.
22 Pennsylvania opinions name it 8 courts 1981–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ablin, Inc. v. Bell Tel. Co. of Pa.green2 sentences1987Ablin, Inc. v. Bell Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania, 291 Pa. Superior Ct. 40 , 435 A.2d 208 (1981). 1987Ablin, Inc. v. Bell Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania, 291 Pa. Superior Ct. 40 , 435 A.2d 208 (1981). | 1 | 4 |
D'AMELIO v. Blue Cross of Lehigh Valleygreen2 sentences2013The purpose of the typicality requirement is “to determine whether the class representatives’ overall position on the common issues is sufficiently aligned with that of the absent class members to ensure that [his/her] pursuit of [his/her] own interest will advance those of the proposed class members.” D' Amelio v. Blue Cross of Lehigh Valley, 500 A.2d 1137, 1146 (Pa. Super. 1985). 40) While the class representatives’ claims have to arise out of the “same course of conduct and involve the same legal theories as those of other members of the class,” they do not have to be identical. 2011The purpose of the typicality requirement is to ensure that "the class representative's overall position on the common issues is sufficiently aligned with that of the absent class members to ensure that her pursuit of her own interests will advance those of the proposed class members." *31 D'Amelio, 500 A.2d at 1146 ; Baldassari, 808 A.2d at 193 . | 1 | 3 |
Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc.green2 sentences2016The purpose of the typicality requirement is to ensure that the class representative’s overall position on the common issues is sufficiently aligned with that of the absent class members to ensure that her pursuit of her own interests will advance those of the proposed class members. ____________________________________________ 6 Our conclusion on commonality provides sufficient grounds to affirm the trial court’s order. - 11 - J-A33026-15 Samuel-Bassett, 34 A.3d at 30 (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). 2013Kia, 34 A.3d at 31 . | 1 | 2 |
Clark v. PFIZER INC.green1 sentence2017“The purpose of the typicality inquiry is to determine whether the class representative’s overall position on the common issues is sufficiently aligned with that of the absent class members to ensure that her pursuit of her own interests will advance those of the proposed class members.” Clark, 990 A.2d at 24-25 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
DiLucido v. Terminix International, Inc.green2 sentences2011Certification Memo., 9/17/04, at 13-14 (citing DiLucido v. Terminix Int'l Inc., 450 Pa.Super. 393 , 676 A.2d 1237, 1242 (1996)). 2011Certification Memo., 9/17/04, at 13-14 (citing DiLucido v. Terminix Int'l Inc., 450 Pa.Super. 393 , 676 A.2d 1237, 1242 (1996)). | 1 | 1 |
Weismer v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp.green2 sentences2010“While the existence of individual questions of fact is not necessarily fatal, it is essential that there be a predominance of common issues, shared by all the class members, which can be justly resolved in a single proceeding.” Weismer v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., 419 Pa.Super. 403 , 615 A.2d 428, 431 (1992) (emphasis in original). ¶ 15 The typicality requirement is similar to the requirements of commonality and the adequacy of representation. 2010“While the existence of individual questions of fact is not necessarily fatal, it is essential that there be a predominance of common issues, shared by all the class members, which can be justly resolved in a single proceeding.” Weismer v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., 419 Pa.Super. 403 , 615 A.2d 428, 431 (1992) (emphasis in original). ¶ 15 The typicality requirement is similar to the requirements of commonality and the adequacy of representation. | 1 | 1 |
Cribb v. United Health Clubs Inc.green2 sentences2003Typicality The purpose of the typicality requirement is to “determine whether the class representative’s overall position on the common issues is sufficiently aligned with that of the absent class members to ensure that her pursuit of her own interests will advance those of the proposed class members.” Cribb v. United Health Clubs Inc., 336 Pa. Super. 479, 483 , 485 A.2d 1182, 1185 (1984). 2003Typicality The purpose of the typicality requirement is to “determine whether the class representative’s overall position on the common issues is sufficiently aligned with that of the absent class members to ensure that her pursuit of her own interests will advance those of the proposed class members.” Cribb v. United Health Clubs Inc., 336 Pa. Super. 479, 483 , 485 A.2d 1182, 1185 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
Kelly v. County of Alleghenygreen2 sentences2002Further, the Superior Court said that class actions are appropriate for “the aggregation of small claims which otherwise could not be litigated in individual actions.” Kelly v. Allegheny County, 519 Pa. 213, 223 , 546 A.2d 608, 612-13 (1988). 2002Further, the Superior Court said that class actions are appropriate for “the aggregation of small claims which otherwise could not be litigated in individual actions.” Kelly v. Allegheny County, 519 Pa. 213, 223 , 546 A.2d 608, 612-13 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
Dunn v. ALLEGHENY CTY. PROP. ASSESSMENTgreen1 sentence2002“This requires that the class representatives’ overall position on the com mon issues [be] sufficiently aligned with that of the absent class members to ensure that pursuit of [those] interests will advance those of the proposed class members.” Dunn v. Allegheny County Property Assessment Appeals, 794 A.2d 416, 424 (Pa. Commw. 2002), quoting Cook v. Highland Water and Sewer Authority, 108 Pa. Commw. at 234 n.8, 530 A.2d at 505 n.8. (emphasis added) Since this court has determined that the commonality requirement has not been met, it must follow that the typicality requirement has also not been | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen1 sentence2002DiLucido, 676 A.2d at 1242. ¶ 71 Our review of the record reflects that Crawley failed to demonstrate on the record that her claims were typical of the class. | 1 | 1 |
Maywalt v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co.green1 sentence2001Makers Antitrust Litig., 169 F.R.D. 493 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (certifying class and subclasses where named plaintiffs had invested only in 60 of the 1,659 securities at issue); Maywalt v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co., 147 F.R.D. 51, 56 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (“to satisfy the typicality requirement, it is not necessary for the named plaintiffs to have invested in all of the investment vehicles”). . | 1 | 1 |
LUITWEILER v. Northchester Corp.green2 sentences1983Luitweiler v. Northchester Corp., 456 Pa. 530 , 319 A.2d 899, 902 (1974). 1983Luitweiler v. Northchester Corp., 456 Pa. 530 , 319 A.2d 899, 902 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
ABC Sewer Cleaning Co. v. Bell of Pennsylvaniagreen2 sentences1982ABC Sewer Cleaning Company v. Bell of Pennsylvania, 293 Pa. Super. 219 , 438 A.2d 616, 620 (1981); Ablin, Inc. v. Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, 291 Pa. Super. 40, 50 , 435 A.2d 208, 213 (1981); Adamson v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, L.C.B., 49 Pa. Commw. 54 , 410 A.2d 392 (1980). 1982ABC Sewer Cleaning Company v. Bell of Pennsylvania, 293 Pa. Super. 219 , 438 A.2d 616, 620 (1981); Ablin, Inc. v. Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, 291 Pa. Super. 40, 50 , 435 A.2d 208, 213 (1981); Adamson v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, L.C.B., 49 Pa. Commw. 54 , 410 A.2d 392 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
Alessandro v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurancegreen2 sentences1981As we stated in Allesandro v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company, 259 Pa.Super. 571, 580 , 393 A.2d 973, 977 (1978), [rev’d in part, on other grounds 487 Pa. 274 , 409 A.2d 347 (1979)], “a person cannot litigate claims of a class of which he is not a member.” Since Ablin is not a national subscriber, and since the interests of national subscribers are not aligned with Ablin’s, we hold that Ablin has failed to satisfy Pa.R.C.P. 1702(3) with respect to its proposed class consisting of both national and local subscribers. 1981As we stated in Allesandro v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company, 259 Pa.Super. 571, 580 , 393 A.2d 973, 977 (1978), [rev’d in part, on other grounds 487 Pa. 274 , 409 A.2d 347 (1979)], “a person cannot litigate claims of a class of which he is not a member.” Since Ablin is not a national subscriber, and since the interests of national subscribers are not aligned with Ablin’s, we hold that Ablin has failed to satisfy Pa.R.C.P. 1702(3) with respect to its proposed class consisting of both national and local subscribers. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cook v. Highland Water & S. Auth.
green
2 sentences2005The trial court further found that since typicality is closely akin to the commonality requirement, see Cook v. Highland Water and Sewer Auth., 108 Pa. Cmwlth. 222, 530 A.2d 499 (1987), it logically followed that the typicality requirement was likewise not met. 2002“This requires that the class representatives’ overall position on the com mon issues [be] sufficiently aligned with that of the absent class members to ensure that pursuit of [those] interests will advance those of the proposed class members.” Dunn v. Allegheny County Property Assessment Appeals, 794 A.2d 416, 424 (Pa. Commw. 2002), quoting Cook v. Highland Water and Sewer Authority, 108 Pa. Commw. at 234 n.8, 530 A.2d at 505 n.8. (emphasis added) Since this court has determined that the commonality requirement has not been met, it must follow that the typicality requirement has also not been | 2 | 2002–2005 |
Keppley v. School District of Twin Valley
green
2 sentences2022Finally, Licensees contend that they met the remaining prerequisite, i.e., that a class action will provide for a fair and efficient method for the adjudication of the controversy10 because (1) the County’s members which can be justly resolved in a single proceeding.” Id. (quotations omitted; emphasis in original). 8 The typicality requirement requires a representative party to show that his overall position on the common issues is sufficiently aligned with that of the absent class members to ensure that his pursuit of his interests will advance those of the proposed class. 2022Keppley, 866 A.2d at 1174 . 9 A representative party’s attorney must be able to “fairly and adequately assert and protect the interests of the class under the criteria set forth in [PA.R.CIV.P. 1709].” PA.R.CIV.P. 1702(4). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Baldassari v. Suburban Cable TV Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2011The purpose of the typicality requirement is to ensure that “the class representative’s overall position on the common issues is sufficiently aligned with that of the absent class members to ensure that her pursuit of her own interests will advance those of the proposed class members.” D’Amelio, 500 A.2d at 1146 ; Baldassari, 808 A.2d at 193 . 2011The purpose of the typicality requirement is to ensure that "the class representative's overall position on the common issues is sufficiently aligned with that of the absent class members to ensure that her pursuit of her own interests will advance those of the proposed class members." *31 D'Amelio, 500 A.2d at 1146 ; Baldassari, 808 A.2d at 193 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Janicik v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
green
2 sentences2010Janicik, 451 A.2d at 457 . 2010“The purpose of the typicality inquiry is to determine whether the class representative’s overall position on the common issues is sufficiently aligned with that of the absent class members to ensure that her pursuit of her own interests will advance those of *25 the proposed class members.” Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
General Telephone Co. of the Northwest, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
green
2 sentences2007In commenting on the typicality requirement, the United States Supreme Court in General Telephone Company of the Northwest, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 446 U.S. 318, 330 , 100 S.Ct. 1698 , 64 L.Ed.2d 319 (1980) observed: “The typicality requirement is said to limit the class claims to those fairly encompassed by the named plaintiffs’ claims. 2007In commenting on the typicality requirement, the United States Supreme Court in General Telephone Company of the Northwest, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 446 U.S. 318, 330 , 100 S.Ct. 1698 , 64 L.Ed.2d 319 (1980) observed: “The typicality requirement is said to limit the class claims to those fairly encompassed by the named plaintiffs’ claims. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Reilly v. Gould, Inc.
green
1 sentence2005Reilly, 965 F.Supp. 588 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
In re Nasdaq Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation
green
1 sentence2001Makers Antitrust Litig., 169 F.R.D. 493 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (certifying class and subclasses where named plaintiffs had invested only in 60 of the 1,659 securities at issue); Maywalt v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co., 147 F.R.D. 51, 56 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (“to satisfy the typicality requirement, it is not necessary for the named plaintiffs to have invested in all of the investment vehicles”). . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Hayes v. Motorists Mutual Insurance
green
1 sentence2000Hayes , 370 Pa. Super, at 610, 537 A.2d at 334 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Hedges Enterprises, Inc. v. Continental Group, Inc.
green
1 sentence1989As with the requirement of Rule 23(a)(2), [1702(2)] the representative plaintiffs claims must be similar enough to permit the Court to conclude that the representative party will adequately represent the interests of the class and that there are no antagonistic or adverse interests between the representative plaintiff and the proposed class [citations omitted] * * * * * While it is generally recognized that the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) [1703(3) ] and the adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a)(4) [1702(4)] ‘represent a two-pronged approach intended to insure that the claims of the cl | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Samuels v. SMOCK
green
1 sentence1984Id. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Adamson v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1982ABC Sewer Cleaning Company v. Bell of Pennsylvania, 293 Pa. Super. 219 , 438 A.2d 616, 620 (1981); Ablin, Inc. v. Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, 291 Pa. Super. 40, 50 , 435 A.2d 208, 213 (1981); Adamson v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, L.C.B., 49 Pa. Commw. 54 , 410 A.2d 392 (1980). 1982ABC Sewer Cleaning Company v. Bell of Pennsylvania, 293 Pa. Super. 219 , 438 A.2d 616, 620 (1981); Ablin, Inc. v. Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, 291 Pa. Super. 40, 50 , 435 A.2d 208, 213 (1981); Adamson v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, L.C.B., 49 Pa. Commw. 54 , 410 A.2d 392 (1980). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Alessandro v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
green
2 sentences1981As we stated in Allesandro v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company, 259 Pa.Super. 571, 580 , 393 A.2d 973, 977 (1978), [rev’d in part, on other grounds 487 Pa. 274 , 409 A.2d 347 (1979)], “a person cannot litigate claims of a class of which he is not a member.” Since Ablin is not a national subscriber, and since the interests of national subscribers are not aligned with Ablin’s, we hold that Ablin has failed to satisfy Pa.R.C.P. 1702(3) with respect to its proposed class consisting of both national and local subscribers. 1981As we stated in Allesandro v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company, 259 Pa.Super. 571, 580 , 393 A.2d 973, 977 (1978), [rev’d in part, on other grounds 487 Pa. 274 , 409 A.2d 347 (1979)], “a person cannot litigate claims of a class of which he is not a member.” Since Ablin is not a national subscriber, and since the interests of national subscribers are not aligned with Ablin’s, we hold that Ablin has failed to satisfy Pa.R.C.P. 1702(3) with respect to its proposed class consisting of both national and local subscribers. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.