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 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 2019–2025 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hensley v. Haynes Trucking, LLCgreen2 sentences2022“We must . . . scrupulously respect the limitations of the crossover between (1) reviewing issues implicating the merits of the case that happen to affect the class-certification analysis and (2) limiting our review to the class-certification issue itself.” Id. b. 2019"The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial judge's decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles." Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Thompson , 11 S.W.3d 575 , 581 (Ky. 2000) (citation omitted). 4 As this Court undertakes its review, "[w]e must focus our analysis on this limited issue [of class certification] and in so doing scrupulously respect the limitations of the crossover between (1) reviewing issues implicating the merits of the *110 case that happen to affect the class-certification analysis and (2) limiting our review to the class-certi | 4 | 7 |
Manning v. Liberty Tire Servs. of Ohio, LLCgreen1 sentence2023Manning v. Liberty Tire Services of Ohio, LLC, 577 S.W.3d 102, 109-10 (Ky. App. 2019) (internal quotation marks, footnotes, and citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Darryl Williams v. Jani King of Philadelphia Incgreen1 sentence2022Williams v. Jani-King of Philadelphia Inc., 837 F.3d 314, 319 (3d Cir. 2016). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
green
2 sentences2019ANALYSIS The class action is "an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes , 564 U.S. 338 , 348, 131 S.Ct. 2541 , 2550, 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011) (quoting Califano v. Yamasaki , 442 U.S. 682 , 700-01, 99 S.Ct. 2545 , 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979) ). 2019ANALYSIS The class action is "an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes , 564 U.S. 338 , 348, 131 S.Ct. 2541 , 2550, 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011) (quoting Califano v. Yamasaki , 442 U.S. 682 , 700-01, 99 S.Ct. 2545 , 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979) ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Califano v. Yamasaki
green
2 sentences2019ANALYSIS The class action is "an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes , 564 U.S. 338 , 348, 131 S.Ct. 2541 , 2550, 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011) (quoting Califano v. Yamasaki , 442 U.S. 682 , 700-01, 99 S.Ct. 2545 , 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979) ). 2019ANALYSIS The class action is "an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes , 564 U.S. 338 , 348, 131 S.Ct. 2541 , 2550, 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011) (quoting Califano v. Yamasaki , 442 U.S. 682 , 700-01, 99 S.Ct. 2545 , 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979) ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. Thompson
green
1 sentence2019"The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial judge's decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles." Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Thompson , 11 S.W.3d 575 , 581 (Ky. 2000) (citation omitted). 4 As this Court undertakes its review, "[w]e must focus our analysis on this limited issue [of class certification] and in so doing scrupulously respect the limitations of the crossover between (1) reviewing issues implicating the merits of the *110 case that happen to affect the class-certification analysis and (2) limiting our review to the class-certi | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.