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.
10 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2022 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re West Virginia Rezulin Litigationgreen2 sentences2016Given our conclusion that the typicality requirement of Rule 23 was not satisfied in this case, and that, as a consequence, the Swigers did not satisfy all of the Rule 23 requirements necessary for class certification, see Rezulin Litig., 214 W.Va. at 56 , 585 S.E.2d at 56 , syl. pt. 8, we need not address their argument that the circuit court erred in finding that the Swigers did not adequately represent the interests of the putative class or that the predominance requirement was not satisfied. 2010Thus, in order to be certified under Rule 23(b)(3), a class must first satisfy both the predominance test and the superiority test: Under Rule 23(b)(3), a class action may be certified to proceed on behalf of a class if the trial court finds "that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members," and finds that a class action "is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy." In re West Virginia Rezulin Litig., 214 W.Va. at 71, 585 S.E.2d at 71 . | 6 | 7 |
State ex rel. McCaffery v. Hutchisongreen2 sentences2020Rejecting any “rigid test,” the state court opined that the predominance requirement “contemplates a review of many factors.” 214 W. 2016Given our conclusion that the typicality requirement of Rule 23 was not satisfied in this case, and that, as a consequence, the Swigers did not satisfy all of the Rule 23 requirements necessary for class certification, see Rezulin Litig., 214 W.Va. at 56 , 585 S.E.2d at 56 , syl. pt. 8, we need not address their argument that the circuit court erred in finding that the Swigers did not adequately represent the interests of the putative class or that the predominance requirement was not satisfied. | 3 | 7 |
In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigationgreen1 sentence2020Ed. 2d 440 (2019) (“The predominance inquiry calls upon courts to give careful scrutiny to the relation between common and individual questions in the case.” (internal quotations and citations omitted)); In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litig., 985 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1178-79 (N.D. | 1 | 1 |
Marcus v. BMW of North America, LLCgreen1 sentence2020Rather, it is a formulation discussed in some federal cases, describing the unremarkable concept that a class and its members must be readily identifiable with reference to objective criteria, “without extensive and individualized fact- finding or ‘mini-trials[.]’” Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 687 F.3d 583, 592-93 (3rd Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Alex Reinig v. RBS Citizens NAgreen1 sentence2020See also Reinig, 912 F.3d at 127-28 (“At the class certification stage, the predominance requirement is met only if the district court is convinced that the essential elements of the claims brought 18 by a putative class are ‘capable of proof at trial through evidence that is common to the class rather than individual to its members. | 1 | 1 |
Comcast Corp. v. Behrendgreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 34 , 133 S. Ct. 1426, 1432 , 185 L. 2020See, e.g., Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 34 , 133 S. Ct. 1426, 1432 , 185 L. | 1 | 1 |
EQT Production Company v. Robert Adairgreen2 sentences2020Co. v. Adair, 764 F.3d 347, 366 (4th Cir. 2014). 2020Ed. 2d 24 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).” Adair, 764 F.3d at 367 n.19. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co.
green
2 sentences2020The Fourth Circuit additionally recognized that when undertaking the predominance analysis, “the [United States] Supreme Court has noted [that] ‘[c]onsidering whether questions of law or fact common to class members predominate begins . . . with the elements of the underlying cause of action.’ Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., [563] U.S. [804,] [809], 131 S. Ct. 2179, 2184 , 180 L. 2020The Fourth Circuit additionally recognized that when undertaking the predominance analysis, “the [United States] Supreme Court has noted [that] ‘[c]onsidering whether questions of law or fact common to class members predominate begins . . . with the elements of the underlying cause of action.’ Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., [563] U.S. [804,] [809], 131 S. Ct. 2179, 2184 , 180 L. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Robert Brown v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
green
1 sentence2020One of the most succinct tests establishing what a court should examine when undertaking an analysis of the predominance requirement was set forth by the United States 19 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Brown v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., 817 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2016). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.