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 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida 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 |
|---|---|---|
Broin v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.green2 sentences2018See Broin v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 641 So. 2d 888, 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (citing Jenkins v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 782 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1986)). 2011See Broin v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 641 So.2d 888, 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (citing Jenkins v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 782 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir.1986)). | 4 | 4 |
Wyeth, Inc. v. Gottliebgreen2 sentences2012Wyeth, Inc. v. Gottlieb, 930 So.2d 635, 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); see also InPhyNet, 33 So.3d at 771-72 (holding that “[w]hile the predominance requirement parallels the commonality requirement under rule 1.220(a), the predominance requirement in subdivision (b)(3) is more stringent because common questions must pervade”). 2007The rule 1.220(b)(3) requirement parallels the commonality requirement under rule 1.220(a) because both require that common questions exist, but the predominance requirement in subsection (b)(3) "is more stringent since common questions must pervade." Wyeth, Inc. v. Gottlieb, 930 So.2d 635, 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). | 4 | 4 |
Morgan v. Coatsgreen2 sentences2018See Morgan, 33 So.3d at 64 (citing Leszczynski v. Allianz Ins., 176 F.R.D. 659, 671 (S.D. 2011See Morgan, 33 So.3d at 64 (citing Leszczynski v. Allianz Ins., 176 F.R.D. 659, 671 (S.D.Fla.1997)). | 2 | 2 |
Wanda Jenkins v. Raymark Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2018See Broin v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 641 So. 2d 888, 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (citing Jenkins v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 782 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1986)). 2011See Broin v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 641 So.2d 888, 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (citing Jenkins v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 782 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir.1986)). | 2 | 2 |
Leszczynski v. Allianz Insurancegreen2 sentences2018See Morgan, 33 So.3d at 64 (citing Leszczynski v. Allianz Ins., 176 F.R.D. 659, 671 (S.D. 2011See Morgan, 33 So.3d at 64 (citing Leszczynski v. Allianz Ins., 176 F.R.D. 659, 671 (S.D.Fla.1997)). | 2 | 2 |
Sosa v. SAFEWAY PREMIUM FINANCE CO.green2 sentences2018Rule 1.220(a)(2): Commonality “The threshold of the commonality requirement is not high.” Sosa, 73 So. 3d at 107 . 2018Rule 1.220(a)(2): Commonality “The threshold of the commonality requirement is not high.” Sosa, 73 So. 3d at 107 . | 1 | 4 |
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukesgreen2 sentences2013In Wal-Marb Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2541 , 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011), the Supreme Court concluded that the certification of a plaintiff class consisting of female Wal-Mart employees “who allege[d] that the discretion exercised by their local supervisors over pay and promotion matters violate[d] Title VII by discriminating against women,” id. at 2547 , was not proper because it did not satisfy the commonality requirement of rule 23. 2013In Wal-Marb Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2541 , 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011), the Supreme Court concluded that the certification of a plaintiff class consisting of female Wal-Mart employees “who allege[d] that the discretion exercised by their local supervisors over pay and promotion matters violate[d] Title VII by discriminating against women,” id. at 2547 , was not proper because it did not satisfy the commonality requirement of rule 23. | 1 | 3 |
Rollins, Inc. v. Butlandgreen2 sentences2010See Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So.2d 860, 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Clausnitzer, 248 F.R.D. at 657 . 2010Rollins, 951 So.2d at 868 . | 1 | 2 |
InPhyNet Contracting Services, Inc. v. Soriagreen1 sentence2012Wyeth, Inc. v. Gottlieb, 930 So.2d 635, 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); see also InPhyNet, 33 So.3d at 771-72 (holding that “[w]hile the predominance requirement parallels the commonality requirement under rule 1.220(a), the predominance requirement in subdivision (b)(3) is more stringent because common questions must pervade”). | 1 | 1 |
Springer v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Safeway Premium, 73 So.3d at 107 ; Tire Kingdom, Inc. v. Dishkin, 81 So.3d 437, 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Miami Auto. | 1 | 1 |
Imperial Towers Condominium, Inc. v. Browngreen2 sentences2011See Imperial Towers Condo., Inc. v. Brown, 338 So.2d 1081, 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (citing Port Royal, Inc. v. Con boy, 154 So.2d 734, 787 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)). 2011See Imperial Towers Condo., Inc. v. Brown, 338 So.2d 1081, 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (citing Port Royal, Inc. v. Conboy, *108 154 So.2d 734, 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)). | 1 | 1 |
Port Royal, Inc. v. Conboygreen2 sentences2011See Imperial Towers Condo., Inc. v. Brown, 338 So.2d 1081, 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (citing Port Royal, Inc. v. Con boy, 154 So.2d 734, 787 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)). 2011See Imperial Towers Condo., Inc. v. Brown, 338 So.2d 1081, 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (citing Port Royal, Inc. v. Conboy, *108 154 So.2d 734, 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)). | 1 | 1 |
SAFEWAY PREMIUM FINANCE CO. v. Sosagreen2 sentences2011See id. at 11 . 2011See id. at 11 . | 1 | 1 |
Powell v. River Ranch Property Owners Ass'ngreen2 sentences2011See Morgan, 33 So.3d at 64 (“ ‘The ... primary concern in considering the ... commonality of claims should be whether the representative’s claim arises from the same practice or course of conduct that gave rise to the remaining claims and whether the claims are based on the same legal theory.’ ” (emphasis added) (quoting Powell, 522 So.2d at 70 )). 2011See Morgan, 33 So.3d at 64 ("`The . . . primary concern in considering the . . . commonality of claims should be whether the representative's claim arises from the same practice or course of conduct that gave rise to the remaining claims and whether the claims are based on the same legal theory.'" (emphasis added) (quoting Powell, 522 So.2d at 70 )). | 1 | 1 |
Medine v. Washington Mutual, FAgreen1 sentence2010Typicality “ ‘The key inquiry in determining whether a proposed class has “typicality” is whether the class representative is part of the class and possesses the same interest and suffers the same injury as the class members.’ ” Clausnitzer, 248 F.R.D. at 656 (quoting Medine v. Wash. Mut., F.A., 185 F.R.D. 366, 369-70 (S.D.Fla.1998)). | 1 | 1 |
Pop's Pancakes, Inc. v. NuCO2, Inc.green2 sentences2009See Pop’s Pancakes, Inc. v. NuCO2, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 677 (S.D.Fla.2008); Stone v. CompuServe Interactive Servs., Inc., 804 So.2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Chateau Cmtys., Inc. v. Ludtke, 783 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Shoma Dev. 2009See Pop's Pancakes, Inc. v. NuCO2, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 677 (S.D.Fla. 2008); Stone v. CompuServe Interactive Servs., Inc., 804 So.2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Chateau Cmtys., Inc. v. Ludtke, 783 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Shoma Dev. | 1 | 1 |
Rink v. Cheminova, Inc.green1 sentence2006See Rink v. Cheminova, Inc., 203 F.R.D. 648, 661 (M.D.Fla.2001). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
TERRY L. BRAUN, PA v. Campbell
green
2 sentences2010Braun, P.A., 827 So.2d at 267 . 2008"Where both liability and damages depend on individual factual determinations, resolution of these claims can only be decided on an individual basis which is inconsistent with the commonality requirement for class actions." Id. | 2 | 2008–2010 |
Cohen v. Camino Sheridan, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018Instead, the purpose of the commonality requirement is to determine “whether there is a need for, and benefit derived from, class treatment.” Id. 2018This requirement “is satisfied if the common or general interest of the class members is in the object of the action, the result sought, or the general question implicated in the action.” Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Leibell v. Miami-Dade County
green
1 sentence2018Sosa holds that commonality is satisfied if the common interest of putative class members is in the object or result of the action (here, money damages but also injunctive relief), or in the general question implicated in the 3 The Court observed that the single plaintiff, Ms. Leibell, had so far “proven a class of one.” Leibell, 84 So. 3d at 1084 . 11 action. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon
green
2 sentences2011Rather, "[satisfaction of the commonality element] requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class members 'have suffered the same injury.' ” Id. (citing Falcon, 457 U.S. at 157 , 102 S.Ct. 2364 ). 2011Rather, "[satisfaction of the commonality element] requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class members 'have suffered the same injury.' ” Id. (citing Falcon, 457 U.S. at 157 , 102 S.Ct. 2364 ). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Smith v. GLEN COVE APARTMENTS CONDOMINIUMS MASTER ASS'N, INC.
green
2 sentences2011Both Olen Properties, 981 So.2d at 519 , and Glen Cove, 847 So.2d at 1110 , quote the following principle from Terry L. 2011Both Olen Properties, 981 So.2d at 519 , and Glen Cove, 847 So.2d at 1110 , quote the following principle from Terry L. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Olen Properties Corp. v. Moss
green
2 sentences2011The court concluded that the commonality requirement was satisfied because the issue in the case was “whether or not Appellants’ practice of charging liquidated damages rather than actual damages violated Florida law or whether Appellants were required to credit tenants’ accounts with rent it received from re-letting the premises.” Id. at 520 . 2011The court concluded that the commonality requirement was satisfied because the issue in the case was "whether or not Appellants' practice of charging liquidated damages rather than actual damages violated Florida law or whether Appellants were required to credit tenants' accounts with rent it received from re-letting the premises." Id. at 520 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Clausnitzer v. Federal Express Corp.
green
2 sentences2010Typicality “ ‘The key inquiry in determining whether a proposed class has “typicality” is whether the class representative is part of the class and possesses the same interest and suffers the same injury as the class members.’ ” Clausnitzer, 248 F.R.D. at 656 (quoting Medine v. Wash. Mut., F.A., 185 F.R.D. 366, 369-70 (S.D.Fla.1998)). 2010See Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So.2d 860, 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Clausnitzer, 248 F.R.D. at 657 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Stone v. Compuserve Interactive Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009See Pop’s Pancakes, Inc. v. NuCO2, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 677 (S.D.Fla.2008); Stone v. CompuServe Interactive Servs., Inc., 804 So.2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Chateau Cmtys., Inc. v. Ludtke, 783 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Shoma Dev. 2009See Pop's Pancakes, Inc. v. NuCO2, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 677 (S.D.Fla. 2008); Stone v. CompuServe Interactive Servs., Inc., 804 So.2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Chateau Cmtys., Inc. v. Ludtke, 783 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Shoma Dev. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Chateau Communities, Inc. v. Ludtke
green
2 sentences2009See Pop’s Pancakes, Inc. v. NuCO2, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 677 (S.D.Fla.2008); Stone v. CompuServe Interactive Servs., Inc., 804 So.2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Chateau Cmtys., Inc. v. Ludtke, 783 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Shoma Dev. 2009See Pop's Pancakes, Inc. v. NuCO2, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 677 (S.D.Fla. 2008); Stone v. CompuServe Interactive Servs., Inc., 804 So.2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Chateau Cmtys., Inc. v. Ludtke, 783 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Shoma Dev. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Jackson v. Motel 6 Multipurpose, Inc.
green
1 sentence2004Jackson, 130 F.3d at 1005 (citing Amchem ). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Gross v. Franklin
green
1 sentence1994Corp., 407 So.2d 392 , 395 n. 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Neil v. South Florida Auto Painters, Inc., 397 So.2d 1160 , 1163 n. 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Gross v. Franklin, 387 So.2d 1046 , 1048 n. 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). [2] Conflict of laws problems need not defeat the commonality requirement and deprive plaintiffs of class status. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Neil v. South Florida Auto Painters, Inc.
green
1 sentence1994Corp., 407 So.2d 392 , 395 n. 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Neil v. South Florida Auto Painters, Inc., 397 So.2d 1160 , 1163 n. 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Gross v. Franklin, 387 So.2d 1046 , 1048 n. 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). [2] Conflict of laws problems need not defeat the commonality requirement and deprive plaintiffs of class status. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Lauda v. HF Mason Equipment Corp.
neutral
1 sentence1994Corp., 407 So.2d 392 , 395 n. 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Neil v. South Florida Auto Painters, Inc., 397 So.2d 1160 , 1163 n. 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Gross v. Franklin, 387 So.2d 1046 , 1048 n. 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). [2] Conflict of laws problems need not defeat the commonality requirement and deprive plaintiffs of class status. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.