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 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2022 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
Doe v. Southern Gyms, LLCgreen1 sentence2018App. 4 Cir. 4/15/15), 165 So.3d 268 , 278 ; see also Doe v. Southern Gyms, LLC , 12-1566, p. 14 (La. 3/19/13), 112 So.3d 822 , 832-33 (finding that the general rule in favor of certifying a class does not obviate the requirement that courts conduct a rigorous analysis and take a close look at a case to determine if the statutory requirements have been satisfied). | 1 | 1 |
McCastle v. Rollins Environmental Services of La., Inc.green1 sentence2011See McCastle, 456 So.2d at 616 (La. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Price v. Martin
green
2 sentences2015However, “that general rule cannot and should not be used as a substitute for the rigorous analysis required to determine whether the prerequisites of Louisiana’s class action provisions have in fact been satisfied.” Id. 2012However, “that general rule cannot and should not be used as a substitute for the rigorous analysis required to determine whether the prerequisites of Louisiana’s class action provisions have in fact been satisfied.” Id. at 967 . | 6 | 2012–2022 |
Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance v. Explo Systems Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2020Co., supra. While any errors to be made in deciding class action issues should, as a general rule, be in favor of, and not against, the maintenance of the class action, because a class certification is always subject to modification or decertification if later developments so require, that general rule cannot and should not be used as a substitute for the rigorous analysis required to determine whether the prerequisites of Louisiana’s class action provisions have, in fact, been satisfied. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Claborne v. Housing Authority of New Orleans
green
1 sentence2018App. 4 Cir. 4/15/15), 165 So.3d 268 , 278 ; see also Doe v. Southern Gyms, LLC , 12-1566, p. 14 (La. 3/19/13), 112 So.3d 822 , 832-33 (finding that the general rule in favor of certifying a class does not obviate the requirement that courts conduct a rigorous analysis and take a close look at a case to determine if the statutory requirements have been satisfied). | 1 | 2018–2018 |