9 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsorgreen2 sentences2020“The adequacy inquiry under [CR 23.01(d)] serves to uncover conflicts of interest between named parties and the class they seek to represent.” Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625 (1997). 2019"The adequacy inquiry under [ CR 23.01(d) ] serves to uncover conflicts of interest between named parties and the class they seek to represent.... [A] class representative must be part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members." Amchem Prod., Inc. v. Windsor , 521 U.S. 591 , 625-26, 117 S.Ct. 2231 , 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). "[T]he representative must not have any significant interests antagonistic to or conflicting with those of the unnamed members of the class." Hensley , 549 S.W.3d at 443 (quotin | 2 | 3 |
12 Fair empl.prac.cas. 451, 11 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,741 John Senter, Cross-Appellee v. General Motors Corporation, Cross-Appellantgreen1 sentence2024Motors Corp., 532 F.2d 511, 525 (6th Cir. 1976)). | 1 | 1 |
In Re American Medical Systems, Inc. Pfizer, Inc.green1 sentence2022With respect to the first prong of the adequacy analysis, we are mainly concerned with determining whether “there is any antagonism between the interests of the [representative] and other members of the class [she] seek[s] to represent.” In re American Medical Systems, Inc., 75 F.3d 1069, 1083 (6th Cir. 1996).13 Antagonism commonly arises in cases where the named class 13 To date, our appellate courts have not elaborated with any degree of specificity regarding the factors a trial court should consider in assessing the ability of the proposed class representative to vigorously prosecute the in | 1 | 1 |
East Texas Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguezgreen1 sentence2020In practice, “[A] class representative must be part of the class and ‘possess the same interest and suffer the same injury’ as the class members.” Id. (citing East Tex. Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977)). | 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
1 sentence2024The adequacy requirement contains two considerations: “1) the representative must have common interests with unnamed members of the class[;] and 2) it must appear that the representatives will vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel.” Brewer, 529 S.W.3d at 313 (quoting Senter v. Gen. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Manning v. Liberty Tire Servs. of Ohio, LLC
green
1 sentence2021Manning v. Liberty Tire Servs. of Ohio, LLC, 577 S.W.3d 102 , 115- 16 (Ky.App. 2019); Amchem Prod., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625-26 (1997). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Hensley v. Haynes Trucking, LLC
green
1 sentence2019"The adequacy inquiry under [ CR 23.01(d) ] serves to uncover conflicts of interest between named parties and the class they seek to represent.... [A] class representative must be part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members." Amchem Prod., Inc. v. Windsor , 521 U.S. 591 , 625-26, 117 S.Ct. 2231 , 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). "[T]he representative must not have any significant interests antagonistic to or conflicting with those of the unnamed members of the class." Hensley , 549 S.W.3d at 443 (quotin | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Hilen v. Hays
green
1 sentence2011Fourth, she alleges that the circuit court analyzed the claim under a theory of contributory negligence, contrary to our Supreme Court’s abolition of that doctrine as a total bar to recovery by a tort plaintiff in Hilen v. Hays, 673 S.W.2d 713 (Ky.1984). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Robin L. Albright v. The Upjohn Company
green
1 sentence1988The Court, quoting the advisory committee notes, stated that the standard for determining the adequacy of an inquiry was “reasonableness under the circumstances.” Id. at 1221 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Neil S. Spruill v. Boyle-Midway, Incorporated
green
2 sentences1969The fallacy of appellee's position on this point is well illustrated in Spruill v. Boyle-Midway, Incorporated, 308 F.2d 79 (4th Cir. [Va.] 1962) wherein it is written: "The defendants contend, however, that, `The question of the sufficiency of the warning is alleviated by the mother's admission that she never read the label. 1969The fallacy of appellee’s position on this point is well illustrated in Spruill v. Boyle-Midway, Incorporated, 308 F.2d 79 (4th Cir. [Va.] 1962) wherein it is written: “The defendants contend, however, that, ‘The question of the sufficiency of the warning is alleviated by the mother’s admission that she never read the label. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Gasparac v. Castle
green
1 sentence1968The proposition for which the four previous cases stand may be found in the following language of the Gasparac case ( 330 S.W.2d at page 113 ) : “ * * * The provision exempting an emergency vehicle from ordinary traffic regulations confers no absolute immunity upon the driver, for it is based on the prescribed conditions. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.