17 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey 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 |
|---|---|---|
Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsorgreen2 sentences2009The predominance inquiry focuses on "whether the proposed class is `sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.'" Iliadis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 191 N.J. 88, 108 , 922 A. 2d 710 (2007) (quoting Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617 , 117 S.Ct. 2231, 2246 , 138 L.Ed. 2d 689, 708-09 (1997)). 2009The predominance inquiry focuses on "whether the proposed class is `sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.'" Iliadis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 191 N.J. 88, 108 , 922 A. 2d 710 (2007) (quoting Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617 , 117 S.Ct. 2231, 2246 , 138 L.Ed. 2d 689, 708-09 (1997)). | 3 | 4 |
Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc.green2 sentences2017A CFA claim brought by a consumer "requires proof of three elements: '1) unlawful conduct by defendant; 2) an ascertainable loss by plaintiff; and 3) a causal relationship between the 15 A-3485-14T3 unlawful conduct and the ascertainable loss.'" Manahawkin Convalescent v. O'Neill, 217 N.J. 99, 121 (2014) (quoting Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543, 557 (2009)). "'A plaintiff who proves all three elements may be awarded treble damages, "attorneys" fees, filing fees and reasonable costs of suit.'" Id. at 121 (quoting N.J.S.A. 56:8-19). 2017A CFA claim brought by a consumer "requires proof of three elements: '1) unlawful conduct by defendant; 2) an ascertainable loss by plaintiff; and 3) a causal relationship between the 15 A-3485-14T3 unlawful conduct and the ascertainable loss.'" Manahawkin Convalescent v. O'Neill, 217 N.J. 99, 121 (2014) (quoting Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543, 557 (2009)). "'A plaintiff who proves all three elements may be awarded treble damages, "attorneys" fees, filing fees and reasonable costs of suit.'" Id. at 121 (quoting N.J.S.A. 56:8-19). | 2 | 2 |
Kent Motor Cars, Inc. v. Reynolds & Reynolds, Co.green2 sentences2017The purpose of the TCCWNA "is to prevent deceptive practices in consumer contracts by prohibiting the use of illegal terms or warranties in consumer contracts." Kent Motor Cars, Inc. v. Reynolds & Reynolds Co., 207 N.J. 428, 457 (2011). 2016The purpose of the TCCWNA "is to prevent deceptive practices in consumer contracts by prohibiting the use of illegal terms or warranties in consumer contracts." Kent Motor Cars, Inc. v. Reynolds & Reynolds Co., 207 N.J. 428, 457 (2011). 22 A-3485-14T3 The TCCWNA provides in relevant part that: No seller . . . shall in the course of his business offer to any consumer or prospective consumer or enter into any written consumer contract . . . or display any written . . . notice or sign . . . which includes any provision that violates any clearly established legal right of a consumer or responsibil | 2 | 2 |
Manahawkin Convalescent v. Frances O'neill (071033)green2 sentences2017A CFA claim brought by a consumer "requires proof of three elements: '1) unlawful conduct by defendant; 2) an ascertainable loss by plaintiff; and 3) a causal relationship between the 15 A-3485-14T3 unlawful conduct and the ascertainable loss.'" Manahawkin Convalescent v. O'Neill, 217 N.J. 99, 121 (2014) (quoting Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543, 557 (2009)). "'A plaintiff who proves all three elements may be awarded treble damages, "attorneys" fees, filing fees and reasonable costs of suit.'" Id. at 121 (quoting N.J.S.A. 56:8-19). 2016A CFA claim brought by a consumer "requires proof of three elements: '1) unlawful conduct by defendant; 2) an ascertainable loss by plaintiff; and 3) a causal relationship between the unlawful conduct and the ascertainable loss.'" Manahawkin Convalescent v. O'Neill, 217 N.J. 99, 121 (2014) (quoting Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543, 557 (2009)). "'A plaintiff who proves all three elements may be awarded treble damages, "attorneys" fees, filing fees and reasonable costs of suit.'" Id. at 121 (quoting N.J.S.A. 56:8-19). | 2 | 2 |
In Re Gonzalezgreen2 sentences2017As the Court observed in Lee, supra, the predominance requirement mandates “a qualitative assessment of the common and individual questions rather than a mere mathematical quantification of whether there are more of one than the other.” 203 N.J. at 519-20 , 4 A.3d 561 (citing Iliadis, supra, 191 N.J. at 108 , 922 A.2d 710 ). 2017In the predominance inquiry, we do not simply accept a class plaintiff's contention that an element of their claim can be proven for the class as a whole with a single piece of evidence; instead, we subject that claim and other aspects of the case to a "rigorous analysis.” Iliadis, supra, 191 N.J. at 106-07 , 922 A.2d 710 (citations omitted). | 1 | 4 |
Saldana v. City of Camdengreen2 sentences2006The cause of each fire, and whether the absence of a City protective or maintenance policy contributed to it will, no doubt, be fact-sensitive issues resolved by fact-specific proofs. [ Id. at 197 , 599 A. 2d 582 .] Muise, supra, is a recent example of another attempted class action that foundered on the predominance requirement. 2006The cause of each fire, and whether the absence of a City protective or maintenance policy contributed to it will, no doubt, be fact-sensitive issues resolved by fact-specific proofs. [ Id. at 197 , 599 A. 2d 582 .] Muise, supra, is a recent example of another attempted class action that foundered on the predominance requirement. | 1 | 3 |
DEBRA F. FINK v. Ricoh Corp.green2 sentences2007Saldana v. City of Camden, 252 N.J.Super. 188, 197 , 599 A. 2d 582 (App.Div.1991); Debra F. Fink, D.M.D., MS, P.C., v. Ricoh Corp., 365 N.J.Super. 520, 568 , 839 A. 2d 942 (Law Div.2003) (it is not the number of common issues, but rather their significance, that "sways the pendulum"). 2007Saldana v. City of Camden, 252 N.J.Super. 188, 197 , 599 A. 2d 582 (App.Div.1991); Debra F. Fink, D.M.D., MS, P.C., v. Ricoh Corp., 365 N.J.Super. 520, 568 , 839 A. 2d 942 (Law Div.2003) (it is not the number of common issues, but rather their significance, that "sways the pendulum"). | 1 | 2 |
Dianne Castano v. The American Tobacco Companygreen2 sentences2003(Citations omitted). [ Id., 84 F. 3d at 741 ] In Carroll v. Cellco Partnership, supra the Appellate Division adopted the Castano rational pertaining to the need for the trial court to conduct a careful choice of law analysis before concluding that plaintiffs had satisfied the predominance condition for class action certification, stating as follows: In Castano , the court held that, in a nationwide class action, a predominance inquiry that did not include a discussion of how variations in state law would affect predominance and superiority constituted reversible error. 2003(Citations omitted). [ Id., 84 F. 3d at 741 ] In Carroll v. Cellco Partnership, supra the Appellate Division adopted the Castano rational pertaining to the need for the trial court to conduct a careful choice of law analysis before concluding that plaintiffs had satisfied the predominance condition for class action certification, stating as follows: In Castano , the court held that, in a nationwide class action, a predominance inquiry that did not include a discussion of how variations in state law would affect predominance and superiority constituted reversible error. | 1 | 2 |
Lee v. Carter-Reed Co.green2 sentences2017As the Court observed in Lee, supra, the predominance requirement mandates “a qualitative assessment of the common and individual questions rather than a mere mathematical quantification of whether there are more of one than the other.” 203 N.J. at 519-20 , 4 A.3d 561 (citing Iliadis, supra, 191 N.J. at 108 , 922 A.2d 710 ). 2017As the Court observed in Lee, supra, the predominance requirement mandates “a qualitative assessment of the common and individual questions rather than a mere mathematical quantification of whether there are more of one than the other.” 203 N.J. at 519 -20 (citing Iliadis, supra, 191 N.J. at 108 ). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigationgreen2 sentences2017See Lee, supra, 203 N.J. at 526-28 , 4 A.3d 561 (applying predominance standard to CFA claim); Iliadis, supra, 191 N.J. at 107 , 922 A.2d 710 (establishing requirements of predominance in class certification analysis); see also In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305, 310-12 (3d Cir. 2008) (analyzing predominance in context of antitrust case). 2017See Lee, supra, 203 N.J. at 526-28 (applying predominance standard to CFA claim); Iliadis, supra, 191 N.J. at 107 (establishing requirements of predominance in class certification analysis); see also In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305, 310-12 (3d Cir. 2008) (analyzing predominance in context of antitrust case). | 1 | 1 |
In the Matter of Kuuselagreen2 sentences2017As the Court observed in Lee, supra, the predominance requirement mandates “a qualitative assessment of the common and individual questions rather than a mere mathematical quantification of whether there are more of one than the other.” 203 N.J. at 519-20 , 4 A.3d 561 (citing Iliadis, supra, 191 N.J. at 108 , 922 A.2d 710 ). 2017See Lee, supra, 203 N.J. at 526-28 , 4 A.3d 561 (applying predominance standard to CFA claim); Iliadis, supra, 191 N.J. at 107 , 922 A.2d 710 (establishing requirements of predominance in class certification analysis); see also In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305, 310-12 (3d Cir. 2008) (analyzing predominance in context of antitrust case). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Debra Dugan v. TGI Friday’s, Inc. (077567) Ernest Bozzi v. OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC (077567) (Burlington County and Statewide)
green
2 sentences2020"To determine predominance under Rule 4:32-1(b)(3), the court decides 'whether the proposed class is "sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation."'" Dugan, 231 N.J. at 48 . 2019Id. at 71 , 171 A.3d 620 . | 3 | 2019–2020 |
In Re the Cadillac V8-6-4 Class Action
green
2 sentences2007Although the commonality requirement may be satisfied by a single shared experience, the predominance inquiry is far more demanding. [(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).] The trial judge found that “[tjhere are 40 Wal-Mart stores and nine Sam’s Club stores in New Jersey” and that, “[i]n the WalMart stores, there are 90 different hourly employee classifications whüe, in the Sam’s Club stores, there are 100 different hourly employee classifications.” Taking issue with the obviously erroneous statistical and anecdotal proofs advanced by plaintiffs, she explained that those proofs do 2007Although the commonality requirement may be satisfied by a single shared experience, the predominance inquiry is far more demanding. [(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).] The trial judge found that “[tjhere are 40 Wal-Mart stores and nine Sam’s Club stores in New Jersey” and that, “[i]n the WalMart stores, there are 90 different hourly employee classifications whüe, in the Sam’s Club stores, there are 100 different hourly employee classifications.” Taking issue with the obviously erroneous statistical and anecdotal proofs advanced by plaintiffs, she explained that those proofs do | 3 | 2004–2017 |
Iliadis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017As the Court observed in Lee, supra, the predominance requirement mandates “a qualitative assessment of the common and individual questions rather than a mere mathematical quantification of whether there are more of one than the other.” 203 N.J. at 519-20 , 4 A.3d 561 (citing Iliadis, supra, 191 N.J. at 108 , 922 A.2d 710 ). 2017In the predominance inquiry, we do not simply accept a class plaintiff's contention that an element of their claim can be proven for the class as a whole with a single piece of evidence; instead, we subject that claim and other aspects of the case to a "rigorous analysis.” Iliadis, supra, 191 N.J. at 106-07 , 922 A.2d 710 (citations omitted). | 2 | 2009–2017 |
Muise v. GPU, INC.
green
2 sentences2004Predominance The predominance requirement of R. 4:32-l(b)(3) “is more demanding than the commonality requirement.” Muise v. GPU, Inc., 371 N.J.Super. 13, 31 , 851 A.2d 799 (App.Div.2004); In re LifeUSA supra, 242 F.3d at 144 . 2004Predominance The predominance requirement of R. 4:32-l(b)(3) “is more demanding than the commonality requirement.” Muise v. GPU, Inc., 371 N.J.Super. 13, 31 , 851 A.2d 799 (App.Div.2004); In re LifeUSA supra, 242 F.3d at 144 . | 2 | 2004–2006 |
Iliadis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007Iliadis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 387 N.J.Super. 405 , 904 A.2d 736 (App.Div.2006). 2007Iliadis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 387 N.J.Super. 405 , 904 A.2d 736 (App.Div.2006). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
LaFleur v. Entergy, Inc.
green
1 sentence2004In LaFleur v. Entergy, Inc., 737 So. 2d 761 (La.Ct.App.1998), another winter storm power interruption case where the plaintiffs alleged negligent failure to maintain the power system, the appellate court affirmed the trial court determination that the proposed class did not meet the predominance requirement. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
In Re: Lifeusa Holding Inc., Lifeusa Holding, Inc.
green
2 sentences2004Predominance The predominance requirement of R. 4:32-l(b)(3) “is more demanding than the commonality requirement.” Muise v. GPU, Inc., 371 N.J.Super. 13, 31 , 851 A.2d 799 (App.Div.2004); In re LifeUSA supra, 242 F.3d at 144 . 2004Predominance The predominance requirement of R. 4:32-l(b)(3) “is more demanding than the commonality requirement.” Muise v. GPU, Inc., 371 N.J.Super. 13, 31 , 851 A.2d 799 (App.Div.2004); In re LifeUSA supra, 242 F.3d at 144 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Strawn v. Canuso
green
2 sentences1997While individual issues of causation, reliance and damages do not preclude class certification, Strawn v. Canuso, 140 N.J. 43, 67 , 657 A.2d 420 (1995), common questions of law or fact must outweigh individual questions in order to satisfy the predominance requirement. 1997While individual issues of causation, reliance and damages do not preclude class certification, Strawn v. Canuso, 140 N.J. 43, 67 , 657 A.2d 420 (1995), common questions of law or fact must outweigh individual questions in order to satisfy the predominance requirement. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.