16 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 2017–2025 11 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kentucky 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hensley v. Haynes Trucking, LLCgreen2 sentences2021The Hensley Court expanded upon this element as follows: The U.S. Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes highlighted the focus of the commonality question: Whether the class plaintiffs’ claims “depend upon a common contention . . . that is capable of class wide resolution – which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” This Court has also expounded on the commonality requirement: “CR 23.01(b) requires that there must be questions of law or fact common to the class, but it does not 2021The U.S. Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes highlighted the focus of the commonality question: Whether the class plaintiffs’ claims “depend upon a common contention . . . that is capable of class wide resolution—which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” This Court has also expounded on the commonality requirement: “CR 23.01(b) requires that there must be -5- questions of law or fact common to the class, but it does not require that all questions of law or fact be common.” H | 3 | 5 |
Wiley v. Adkinsgreen2 sentences2024In response, Johnson quotes precedent from our Supreme Court stating that the commonality requirement “does not require that all questions of law or fact be common” and that “complete identity of facts relating to all members” is not necessary “as long as there is a common nucleus of operative facts.” See Wiley v. Adkins, 48 S.W.3d 20, 23 (Ky. 2001). 2024In response, Johnson quotes precedent from our Supreme Court stating that the commonality requirement “does not require that all questions of law or fact be common” and that “complete identity of facts relating to all members” is not necessary “as long as there is a common nucleus of operative facts.” See Wiley v. Adkins, 48 S.W.3d 20, 23 (Ky. 2001). | 3 | 3 |
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukesgreen2 sentences2025With respect to this question, the United States Supreme Court in Dukes further held that the “common contention, moreover, must be of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution – which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350 , 131 S. Ct. at 2551 . -16- The Retirees contend that the Trial Court erred by engaging in the commonality analysis under CR 23.02 after it had already found commonality under CR 23.01. 2025With respect to this question, the United States Supreme Court in Dukes further held that the “common contention, moreover, must be of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution – which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350 , 131 S. Ct. at 2551 . -16- The Retirees contend that the Trial Court erred by engaging in the commonality analysis under CR 23.02 after it had already found commonality under CR 23.01. | 2 | 6 |
Robert D. Sprague, Plaintiffs-Appellees/cross-Appellants v. General Motors Corporation, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appelleegreen2 sentences2024See Sprague v. General Motors Corp., 133 F.3d 388, 397-98 (6th Cir. 1998) (stating: “What we are looking for is a common issue the resolution of which will advance the litigation” and recognizing commonality entails proof on a class-wide rather than individualized basis). 2024See Sprague v. General Motors Corp., 133 F.3d 388, 397-98 (6th Cir. 1998) (stating: “What we are looking for is a common issue the resolution of which will advance the litigation” and recognizing commonality entails proof on a class-wide rather than individualized basis). | 2 | 2 |
cluster 780857green1 sentence2020Manning, 577 S.W.3d at 118; See also O’Sullivan v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 319 F.3d 732 , 738 (5th Cir. 2003); -10- Anchem,[sic] 521 U.S. at 624 . | 1 | 1 |
Giles v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2020Manning, 577 S.W.3d at 118; See also O’Sullivan v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 319 F.3d 732 , 738 (5th Cir. 2003); -10- Anchem,[sic] 521 U.S. at 624 . | 1 | 1 |
In Re Community Bank of Northern Virginia Mortgage Lending Practices Litigationgreen1 sentence2017Lending Practices Litigation, 795 F.3d 380, 399 (3d Cir. 2015) (finding commonality existed when mortgagor used the same unlawful kickback scheme, uniform method of inaccurate title charges, and repeated mail and wire fraud in dealing with class members). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nebraska Alliance Realty Co. v. Brewer
green
2 sentences2022Realty Company, 529 S.W.3d at 312 . 2018The class representative need show only that it is extremely difficult or inconvenient to ,) join all members of the class."40 The U.S. Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes highlighted the focus of the 'commonality question: Whether the class plaintiffs' claims "depend upon a common contention ... that is capable of class wide resolution-which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that·is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke." 41 This Court has also expounded on the commonality requirement: ."CR 23.01 (b) requires that 37 I | 2 | 2018–2022 |
Manning v. Liberty Tire Servs. of Ohio, LLC
green
1 sentence2024Typicality “Unlike commonality, which focuses on the group characteristics such as the relationship of common facts and legal issues related to the class as a whole, typicality examines the individual characteristics of the named plaintiffs in relation to the class.” Manning, 577 S.W.3d at 114 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Hohider v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
green
1 sentence2021In the section of the opinion and order addressing commonality, the circuit court cited to Hohider, supra, in which the Third Circuit Court of Appeals addressed whether the district court properly granted class certification related to UPS’ 100% healthy policy under a claim for unlawful discrimination under Title I of the Americans with Disability Acts of 1990, 42 United States Code (“U.S.C.”) §§ 12101-12117 (the ADA). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor
green
1 sentence2020Manning, 577 S.W.3d at 118; See also O’Sullivan v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 319 F.3d 732 , 738 (5th Cir. 2003); -10- Anchem,[sic] 521 U.S. at 624 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Sowders v. Atkins
green
1 sentence2018The class representative need show only that it is extremely difficult or inconvenient to ,) join all members of the class."40 The U.S. Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes highlighted the focus of the 'commonality question: Whether the class plaintiffs' claims "depend upon a common contention ... that is capable of class wide resolution-which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that·is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke." 41 This Court has also expounded on the commonality requirement: ."CR 23.01 (b) requires that 37 I | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Simpson v. Specialty Retail Concepts
green
2 sentences2018The class representative need show only that it is extremely difficult or inconvenient to ,) join all members of the class."40 The U.S. Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes highlighted the focus of the 'commonality question: Whether the class plaintiffs' claims "depend upon a common contention ... that is capable of class wide resolution-which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that·is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke." 41 This Court has also expounded on the commonality requirement: ."CR 23.01 (b) requires that 37 I 2018Dukes identifies the commonality analysis lynchpin: Whether the class plaintiffs' claims "depend upon a common contention ... that is capable of class wide resolution-which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke."63 In thi~ case, .the common contention, central fo the validity of each .claim of each purported class member in thi,~ case, is that truck drivers who · worked on public-works projects were not paid the prevailing wage and are entitled to that wage. 62 Philipps; supra fn 36 (citing | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.