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 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by West Virginia 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wanda Jenkins v. Raymark Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2003“The threshold of ‘commonality’ is not high,” and “requires only that resolution of the common questions affect all or a substantial number of the class members.” Jenkins v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 782 F.2d 468, 472 (5th Cir.1986). 2003"The threshold of `commonality' is not high," and "requires only that resolution of the common questions affect all or a substantial number of the class members." Jenkins v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 782 F.2d 468, 472 (5th Cir. 1986). | 2 | 2 |
In Re West Virginia Rezulin Litigationgreen2 sentences2017Va. 52 , 585 S.E.2d 52 , we explained the commonality requirement as follows: The “commonality” requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure [1998] requires that the party seeking class certification show that “there are questions of law or fact common to the class.” A common nucleus of operative fact or law is usually enough to satisfy the commonality requirement. 2014Va. 52 , 585 S.E.2d 52 , this Court held: The “commonality” requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure [1998] requires that the party seeking class certification show that “there are questions of law or fact common to the class.” A common nucleus of operative fact or law is usually enough to satisfy the commonality requirement. | 1 | 5 |
Rosario v. Livaditisgreen2 sentences2003The “Commonality” Requirement of Ride 23(a)(2) The “commonality” requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) requires that the party seeking class certification show that “there are questions of law or fact common to the class.” “A common nucleus of operative fact [or law] is usually enough to satisfy the commonality requirement.” Rosario v. Livaditis, 963 F.2d 1013, 1017-18 (7th Cir.1992). 2003The "Commonality" Requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) The "commonality" requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) requires that the party seeking class certification show that "there are questions of law or fact common to the class." "A common nucleus of operative fact [or law] is usually enough to satisfy the commonality requirement." Rosario v. Livaditis, 963 F.2d 1013 , 1017-18 (7th Cir.1992). | 1 | 2 |
State ex rel. U-Haul Co. v. Zakaibgreen2 sentences2018U-Haul I, 232 W.Va. at 446-47 , 752 S.E.2d at 600-01 (Ketchum, J., dissenting). 2018U-Haul I, 232 W.Va. at 446-47 , 752 S.E.2d at 600-01 (Ketchum, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State ex rel. McCaffery v. Hutchison
green
2 sentences2014In syllabus point 11 of Rezulin, 214 W.Va. 52 , 585 S.E.2d 52 , this Court held: The “commonality” requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) of the Wesi Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure [1998] requires that the party seeking class certification show that “there are questions of law or fact common to the class.” A common nucleus of operative fact or law is usually enough to satisfy the commonality requirement. 2013Rezulin Litigation, 214 W.Va. 52 , 585 S.E.2d 52 (2003): The “commonality” requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure [1998] requires that the party seeking class certification show that “there are questions of law or fact common to the class.” A common nucleus of operative fact or law is usually enough to satisfy the commonality requirement. | 6 | 2003–2022 |
Painter v. Peavy
green
1 sentence2020Va. 189 , 192 n.6, 451 S.E.2d 755 , 758 n.6 (1994). 14 (4th Cir. 2001) (“In a class action brought under Rule 23(b)(3), the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) is subsumed under, or superseded by, the more stringent Rule 23(b)(3) requirement that questions common to the class predominate over other questions.” (internal quotations and citations omitted)). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Martin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
green
1 sentence2017The case of Martin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 809 F. Supp. 2d 496 (S.D. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Daniel W. Thomas v. William Ray McDermitt and State Farm Mutual Insurance
green
1 sentence2017The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. 9 See Thomas, 232 W. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
SER J.C., a Minor v. Hon. James P. Mazzone, Lead Presiding Judge
green
2 sentences2015Id. 2015Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.