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.
9 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
Arnold v. Dirrimgreen2 sentences2005One of the earlier ones, Arnold v. Dirrim, 398 N.E.2d 426, 436 (1979), trams. not sought, described the requirement as depending "on whether the claims of the class members derive from a common nucleus of operative facts." But then, after identifying the "essence of the class members' claims," it found that the common nucleus of common facts "would be largely the same for all class members." Id. 2005One of the earlier ones, Arnold v. Dirrim, 398 N.E.2d 426, 436 (1979), trams. not sought, described the requirement as depending "on whether the claims of the class members derive from a common nucleus of operative facts." But then, after identifying the "essence of the class members' claims," it found that the common nucleus of common facts "would be largely the same for all class members." Id. | 2 | 2 |
7-Eleven, Inc. v. Bowensgreen1 sentence2015Only the third element of subsection (B) is relevant in this case; that element is: “(3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the *1165 members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.... ” Ind. Trial Rule 23(B)(3). 4 The requirements of typicality, predominance, and adequacy of representation are of particular importance in this case. [14] “Typicality may be satisfied through the existence of the same legal theory of the plaintiffs’ claims and defenses; typicality may be satisfied even if there are factual distinctions between the c | 1 | 1 |
Rose v. Denmangreen1 sentence2015Only the third element of subsection (B) is relevant in this case; that element is: “(3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the *1165 members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.... ” Ind. Trial Rule 23(B)(3). 4 The requirements of typicality, predominance, and adequacy of representation are of particular importance in this case. [14] “Typicality may be satisfied through the existence of the same legal theory of the plaintiffs’ claims and defenses; typicality may be satisfied even if there are factual distinctions between the c | 1 | 1 |
County of Monroe v. Priceline.Com, Inc.green1 sentence2011Neither side explicitly raises this as an issue on appeal, although Farno says that "no Indiana case has based denial of class certification on superiority alone, and 'the conclusion that common issues of law and fact predominate ... strongly militates in favor of a class action as a superior means of litigating th[e] case.' " Farno’s Br. at 39-40 (quoting County of Monroe, Fla. v. Priceline.com, Inc., 265 F.R.D. 659, 671-72 (S.D.Fla.2010)). 13 . | 1 | 1 |
Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Bolkagreen1 sentence2003See Bolka, 693 N.E.2d at 616-17, 620 ; Connerwood Healthcare, Inc., 683 N.E.2d at 1326 ; Skalbania, 443 N.E.2d at 363 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Associated Medical Networks, Ltd. v. Lewis
green
2 sentences2020The court’s conclusion is plainly correct: “[t]he proposed class is bound together by a mutual interest in resolving common questions” regarding the emanation of odors from the landfill “more than it is divided by individual interests” or variances in the specific measure of damages from those emanations, and the resolution of those questions “would significantly advance the litigation.” Id. at 686 . 2015Id. [41] -The trial court concluded that because “Bowman and the class members’ claims all derive from a common nucleus,” the predominance requirement was satisfied. | 3 | 2006–2020 |
Connerwood Healthcare, Inc. v. Estate of Herron
green
2 sentences2004The crux of the complaint was that Connerwood's negligence caused injury to Herron, the deceased, and other residents. 683 N.E.2d at 18325 . *1206 Upon appeal, this court held that the predominance requirement of TR. 23(B)8) was satisfied because the action arose from common operative facts. and that both state and federal courts had approved of class action treatment for mass torts such as a food poisoning. 2004The crux of the complaint was that Connerwood's negligence caused injury to Herron, the deceased, and other residents. 683 N.E.2d at 18325 . *1206 Upon appeal, this court held that the predominance requirement of TR. 23(B)8) was satisfied because the action arose from common operative facts. and that both state and federal courts had approved of class action treatment for mass torts such as a food poisoning. | 2 | 2003–2004 |
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Bailey
green
1 sentence2005In each case, it is evident from this court's analysis and holding that the common course of conduct could establish a main issue with respect to the case, such as the negli-genee of the party.. .. [While a common nucleus of operative facts may satisfy the predominance requirement, such is not necessarily so. | The court indicated its agreement with the assertion that "just because the claims may arise from 'a common nucleus of operative facts' does not mean that the common claims necessarily predominate." Id. at 1204 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Associated Medical Networks, Ltd. v. Lewis
green
1 sentence2004Id. at 286 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Skalbania v. Simmons
green
1 sentence2003See Bolka, 693 N.E.2d at 616-17, 620 ; Connerwood Healthcare, Inc., 683 N.E.2d at 1326 ; Skalbania, 443 N.E.2d at 363 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Kramer v. Scientific Control Corp.
green
1 sentence1979See: Kramer v. Scientific Control Corp. (E.D.Pa.1975), 67 F.R.D. 98 ; Morris v. Buchard (S.D.N.Y.1971), 51 F.R.D. 530 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Morris v. Burchard
green
1 sentence1979See: Kramer v. Scientific Control Corp. (E.D.Pa.1975), 67 F.R.D. 98 ; Morris v. Buchard (S.D.N.Y.1971), 51 F.R.D. 530 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.