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.
20 Arkansas opinions name it 1 courts 1893–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas 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 |
|---|---|---|
The/Fre, Inc. v. Martingreen2 sentences2020E.g., THE/FRE, Inc. v. Martin, 349 Ark. 507, 514 , 78 S.W.3d 723, 727 (2002). 2020E.g., THE/FRE, Inc. v. Martin, 349 Ark. 507, 514 , 78 S.W.3d 723, 727 (2002). | 4 | 4 |
General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcongreen2 sentences2000However, we have eliminated the requirement under federal rules that there must be a rigorous analysis for certification as oudined in General Telephone Company of South West v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982). 2000However, we have eliminated the requirement under federal rules that there must be a rigorous analysis for certification as outlined in General Telephone Company of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 , 102 S.Ct. 2364 , 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982). | 1 | 2 |
Lenders Title Co. v. Chandlergreen2 sentences2019Chandler , 353 Ark. at 349 , 107 S.W.3d at 162 (stating that although a rigorous analysis is not required, the circuit *376 court must undertake enough of an analysis to enable us to conduct a meaningful review of the certification issue on appeal). 2019Chandler , 353 Ark. at 349 , 107 S.W.3d at 162 (stating that although a rigorous analysis is not required, the circuit *376 court must undertake enough of an analysis to enable us to conduct a meaningful review of the certification issue on appeal). | 1 | 1 |
TERIS, LLC v. Chandlergreen2 sentences2009See, e.g., Tens, LLC v. Chandler, 375 Ark. 70, 83 , 289 S.W.3d 63, 73 (2008). 2009See, e.g., Tens, LLC v. Chandler, 375 Ark. 70, 83 , 289 S.W.3d 63, 73 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Compaq Computer Corp. v. Lapraygreen1 sentence2008Super. 98 , 925 A.2d 684 (2007) (holding that a class-action motion court has a duty to conduct a choice-of-law analysis before deciding whether the predominance element is satisfied and that, although conflict-of-law issues do not per se foreclose certification of a multistate class, a thorough analysis of state laws is particularly important where a possibility exists that common issues could be subsumed by substantive conflicts in state laws; but, advising that a trial court should undertake a rigorous analysis to determine if the requirements of the class-certification rule have been met); | 1 | 1 |
Beverly Enterprises - Arkansas, Inc. v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., Beverly Enters.-Arkansas, Inc. v. Thomas, 370 Ark. 310 , 259 S.W.3d 445 (2007). 2008See, e.g., Beverly Enters.-Arkansas, Inc. v. Thomas, 370 Ark. 310 , 259 S.W.3d 445 (2007). | 1 | 1 |
Tay-Tay, Inc. v. Younggreen2 sentences2003See, e.g., Tay-Tay, 349 Ark. 675 , 80 S.W.3d 365 ; The Money Place v. Barnes, 349 Ark. 518 , 78 S.W.3d 730 (2002); Mega Life, 330 Ark. 261 , 954 S.W.2d 898 . 1 In Mega Life, this court rejected the notion that a rigorous analysis was required on the issue of certification: We also must respond to the dissent’s contention that the certification order must be reversed because the trial court failed to conduct a “rigorous analysis” of the Rule 23(b) requirements of predominance and superiority. 2003See, e.g., Tay-Tay, 349 Ark. 675 , 80 S.W.3d 365 ; The Money Place v. Barnes, 349 Ark. 518 , 78 S.W.3d 730 (2002); Mega Life, 330 Ark. 261 , 954 S.W.2d 898 . 1 In Mega Life, this court rejected the notion that a rigorous analysis was required on the issue of certification: We also must respond to the dissent’s contention that the certification order must be reversed because the trial court failed to conduct a “rigorous analysis” of the Rule 23(b) requirements of predominance and superiority. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Huffgreen1 sentence2000See Becker v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 482 , 789 S.W.2d 71 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
Becker v. McCuengreen1 sentence2000See Becker v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 482 , 789 S.W.2d 71 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
Dianne Castano v. The American Tobacco Companygreen2 sentences1997The Supreme Court, in interpreting Rule 23, has said that a class action "may only be certified if the trial court is satisfied after a rigorous analysis, that the prerequisites of Rule 23 have been satisfied." General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 , 102 S.Ct. 2364, 2371-72 , 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982) (emphasis supplied); see also Castano v. American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996). 1997The Supreme Court, in interpreting Rule 23, has said that a class action “may only be certified if the trial court is satisfied after a rigorous analysis, that the prerequisites of Rule 23 have been satisfied.” General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982) (emphasis supplied); see also Castano v. American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mega Life and Health Ins. Co. v. Jacola
green
2 sentences2006Quoting Mega Life, 330 Ark. at 269 , 954 S.W.2d at 901 , the Lenders I court wrote the following: We have consistently maintained that the trial court is not required to conduct a rigorous analysis before it may certify a case as a class action. 2006Quoting Mega Life, 330 Ark. at 269 , 954 S.W.2d at 901 , the Lenders I court wrote the following: We have consistently maintained that the trial court is not required to conduct a rigorous analysis before it may certify a case as a class action. | 4 | 2002–2006 |
Motley v. Parks
green
2 sentences2024First, as the Ninth Circuit reasoned in Motley [v. Parks, 432 F.3d 1072 (Ninth Cir. 2005) (en banc)], the potential for violations of the constitutional rights of third parties necessitates a more rigorous standard than reasonable suspicion. 2024First, as the Ninth Circuit reasoned in Motley [v. Parks, 432 F.3d 1072 (Ninth Cir. 2005) (en banc)], the potential for violations of the constitutional rights of third parties necessitates a more rigorous standard than reasonable suspicion. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Infinity Healthcare Management of Arkansas, LLC; Skyline Healthcare, LLC; Highlands of North Little Rock John Ashley Holdings, LLC, D/B/A North Little Rock Health and Rehabilitation; 2501 John Ashley Drive Holdings, LLC; Skyline Highland Holdings, LLC; JS Highland Holdings, LLC; Skyline Services Group, LLC; Skyline Arkansas Healthcare, LLC; And Skyline Arkansas Holdings, LLC v. Dafony Boyd, Deana Atkins-Davis, Latoyia Floyd, and Hannah Barnes
green
1 sentence2022Instead, Lee only needs a “minimal level of interest in the action.” And Shelter’s primary support that Baggett’s criminal history bars him from serving as class representative comes from federal cases, which are generally unpersuasive authority in this area. 7 Infinity Healthcare Mgmt. of Ark., LLC v. Boyd, 2019 Ark. 346, at 14 , 588 S.W.3d 22 , 31 (explaining that “federal cases are of limited value because we do not follow the rigorous analysis standard applied by federal courts to Rule 23 class certification”).1 D. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In the Matter of Ledingham
green
1 sentence2008Super. 98 , 925 A.2d 684 (2007) (holding that a class-action motion court has a duty to conduct a choice-of-law analysis before deciding whether the predominance element is satisfied and that, although conflict-of-law issues do not per se foreclose certification of a multistate class, a thorough analysis of state laws is particularly important where a possibility exists that common issues could be subsumed by substantive conflicts in state laws; but, advising that a trial court should undertake a rigorous analysis to determine if the requirements of the class-certification rule have been met); | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Maxus, Inc. v. Sciacca
green
2 sentences2007That court observed that determining whether the contract at issue evidenced a transaction involving commerce was not a rigorous inquiry, but that the contract "need have only the slightest nexus with interstate commerce." 847 F.Supp. at 1240 (quoting Maxus, Inc. v. Sciacca, 598 So.2d 1376 (Ala.1992)). 2007That court observed that determining whether the contract at issue evidenced a transaction involving commerce was not a rigorous inquiry, but that the contract “need have only the slightest nexus with interstate commerce.” 847 F. Supp. at 1240 (quoting Maxus, Inc. v. Sciacca, 598 So. 2d 1376 (Ala. 1992)). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Crawford v. West Jersey Health Systems
green
2 sentences2007That court observed that determining whether the contract at issue evidenced a transaction involving commerce was not a rigorous inquiry, but that the contract "need have only the slightest nexus with interstate commerce." 847 F.Supp. at 1240 (quoting Maxus, Inc. v. Sciacca, 598 So.2d 1376 (Ala.1992)). 2007That court observed that determining whether the contract at issue evidenced a transaction involving commerce was not a rigorous inquiry, but that the contract “need have only the slightest nexus with interstate commerce.” 847 F. Supp. at 1240 (quoting Maxus, Inc. v. Sciacca, 598 So. 2d 1376 (Ala. 1992)). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Lloyd v. Butts
green
1 sentence2003Lloyd v. Butts, 343 Ark. 620 , 37 S.W.3d (2001). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
The Money Place, LLC v. Barnes
green
2 sentences2003See, e.g., Tay-Tay, 349 Ark. 675 , 80 S.W.3d 365 ; The Money Place v. Barnes, 349 Ark. 518 , 78 S.W.3d 730 (2002); Mega Life, 330 Ark. 261 , 954 S.W.2d 898 . 1 In Mega Life, this court rejected the notion that a rigorous analysis was required on the issue of certification: We also must respond to the dissent’s contention that the certification order must be reversed because the trial court failed to conduct a “rigorous analysis” of the Rule 23(b) requirements of predominance and superiority. 2003See, e.g., Tay-Tay, 349 Ark. 675 , 80 S.W.3d 365 ; The Money Place v. Barnes, 349 Ark. 518 , 78 S.W.3d 730 (2002); Mega Life, 330 Ark. 261 , 954 S.W.2d 898 . 1 In Mega Life, this court rejected the notion that a rigorous analysis was required on the issue of certification: We also must respond to the dissent’s contention that the certification order must be reversed because the trial court failed to conduct a “rigorous analysis” of the Rule 23(b) requirements of predominance and superiority. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Deffenbaugh Industries & Travelers Insurance v. Angus
green
2 sentences1999Deffenbaugh, 313 Ark. 100 , 852 S.W.2d 804 . 1999Deffenbaugh, 313 Ark. 100 , 852 S.W.2d 804 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor
green
2 sentences1997In the recent case of Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 2231 , 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997), the Supreme Court affirmed a reversal by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals of a district court's class certification, based in part upon *906 a failure to show predominance as required by Rule 23. 1997In the recent case of Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 2231 , 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997), the Supreme Court affirmed a reversal by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals of a district court's class certification, based in part upon *906 a failure to show predominance as required by Rule 23. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Dooley v. Villalonga
green
1 sentence1893Dooley v. Villalonga, 61 Ala. 129 ; Poole v. Gerrard, 65 Am. | 1 | 1893–1893 |
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.