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.
11 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sosa v. SAFEWAY PREMIUM FINANCE CO.green2 sentences2019Second, “[t]he key inquiry for a trial court when it determines whether a proposed class satisfies the typicality requirement is whether the class representative possesses the same legal interest and has endured the same legal injury as the class members.” Sosa, 73 So. 3d at 114 . 2018Id. at 114 (“The key inquiry for a trial court when it determines whether a proposed class satisfies the typicality requirement is whether the class representative possesses the same legal interest and has endured the same legal injury as the class members.”). | 2 | 4 |
Clausnitzer v. Federal Express Corp.green2 sentences2011See Morgan, 33 So.3d at 65 (“ ‘The typicality requirement may be satisfied despite substantial factual differences ... when there is a strong similarity of legal theories.’ ” (quoting Clausnitzer, 248 F.R.D. at 656 )). 2011See Morgan, 33 So.3d at 65 ("`The typicality requirement may be satisfied despite substantial factual differences . . . when there is a strong similarity of legal theories.'" (quoting Clausnitzer, 248 F.R.D. at 656 )). | 1 | 2 |
Morgan v. Coatsgreen2 sentences2011See Morgan, 33 So.3d at 65 (“ ‘The typicality requirement may be satisfied despite substantial factual differences ... when there is a strong similarity of legal theories.’ ” (quoting Clausnitzer, 248 F.R.D. at 656 )). 2011See Morgan, 33 So.3d at 65 ("`The typicality requirement may be satisfied despite substantial factual differences . . . when there is a strong similarity of legal theories.'" (quoting Clausnitzer, 248 F.R.D. at 656 )). | 1 | 1 |
Weiss v. York Hospitalgreen1 sentence2008See Weiss v. York Hosp., 745 F.2d 786 , 810 (3d Cir.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Hutson v. Rexall Sundown, Inc.green1 sentence2004See Hutson v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., 837 So.2d 1090, 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)(affirming the trial court's denial of class certification while essentially finding that the defendant's conduct is not the sole focus of "the typicality requirement" where the claims of individual class members raise different and substantial issues as to their right to recover); Stone v. Compuserve Interactive Servs., Inc., 804 So.2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(affirming the trial court's denial of class certification in a breach of contract case for failure to timely pay promised rebate where each individual applicant' | 1 | 1 |
Liggett Group, Inc. v. Englegreen1 sentence2004See Hutson v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., 837 So.2d 1090, 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)(affirming the trial court's denial of class certification while essentially finding that the defendant's conduct is not the sole focus of "the typicality requirement" where the claims of individual class members raise different and substantial issues as to their right to recover); Stone v. Compuserve Interactive Servs., Inc., 804 So.2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(affirming the trial court's denial of class certification in a breach of contract case for failure to timely pay promised rebate where each individual applicant' | 1 | 1 |
KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP v. Barnergreen1 sentence2002See KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP v. Barner, 799 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (purchasers of corporate stock did not establish qualification for class certification of their action against accounting firm when they failed to present evidence establishing numerosity, commonality, typicality or adequacy). | 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 sentences2011However, “[mjerely pointing to common issues of law is insufficient to meet the typicality requirement when the facts required to prove the claims are markedly different between class members.” Olen Props., 981 So.2d at 520 (quoting Braun, 827 So.2d at 267 ). 2008Merely pointing to common issues of law is insufficient to meet the typicality requirement when the facts required to prove the claims are markedly different between class members." Id. | 2 | 2008–2011 |
Olen Properties Corp. v. Moss
green
1 sentence2011However, “[mjerely pointing to common issues of law is insufficient to meet the typicality requirement when the facts required to prove the claims are markedly different between class members.” Olen Props., 981 So.2d at 520 (quoting Braun, 827 So.2d at 267 ). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Basco v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
green
1 sentence2010“The test for typicality, like the test for commonality, is not demanding and focuses on the general similarity between the named plaintiffs]’ legal and remedial theories and the theories of those whom they purport to represent.” Basco, 216 F.Supp.2d at 599 . ‘“The typicality requirement may be satisfied despite substantial factual differences ... when there is a strong similarity of legal theories.’ ” Clausnitzer, 248 F.R.D. at 656 (quoting Murray v. Auslander, 244 F.3d 807 , 811 (11th Cir.2001)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Murray v. Auslander
green
1 sentence2010“The test for typicality, like the test for commonality, is not demanding and focuses on the general similarity between the named plaintiffs]’ legal and remedial theories and the theories of those whom they purport to represent.” Basco, 216 F.Supp.2d at 599 . ‘“The typicality requirement may be satisfied despite substantial factual differences ... when there is a strong similarity of legal theories.’ ” Clausnitzer, 248 F.R.D. at 656 (quoting Murray v. Auslander, 244 F.3d 807 , 811 (11th Cir.2001)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Davis v. Powertel, Inc.
green
1 sentence2004Among other cases, appellees rely on Davis v. Powertel, Inc., 776 So.2d 971 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), rev. denied, 794 So.2d 605 (Fla.2001). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Stone v. Compuserve Interactive Services, Inc.
green
1 sentence2004See Hutson v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., 837 So.2d 1090, 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)(affirming the trial court's denial of class certification while essentially finding that the defendant's conduct is not the sole focus of "the typicality requirement" where the claims of individual class members raise different and substantial issues as to their right to recover); Stone v. Compuserve Interactive Servs., Inc., 804 So.2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(affirming the trial court's denial of class certification in a breach of contract case for failure to timely pay promised rebate where each individual applicant' | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.