8 New Jersey opinions name it 1 courts 2006–2026 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey 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 |
|---|---|---|
Laufer v. US Life Ins. Co.green2 sentences2026Co. in City of N.Y., 385 N.J. 2019"If the class representative's claims arise from the same events, practice, or conduct, and are based on the same legal theory, as those of other class members, the typicality requirement is satisfied." Id. at 180-81 (quoting 5 James W. | 5 | 6 |
In Re the Cadillac V8-6-4 Class Actiongreen2 sentences2025Under Rule 4:32-1(a)(3), a proposed class satisfies the typicality requirement if its claims "have the essential characteristics common to the claims of the class." Cadillac, 93 N.J. at 425 . 2025Under Rule 4:32-1(a)(3), a proposed class satisfies the typicality requirement if its claims "have the essential characteristics common to the claims of the class." In re Cadillac V8-6-4 Class Action, 93 N.J. 412, 425 (1983) (quoting Moore's Federal Practice § 23.06-2 (1982)). | 1 | 4 |
Baby Neal v. Caseygreen2 sentences2006"If the class representative's claims arise from the same events, practice, or conduct, and are based on the same legal theory, as those of other class members, the typicality requirement is satisfied." Moore, supra, § 23.24[2]. "[C]ases challenging the same unlawful conduct which affects both the named plaintiffs and the putative class usually satisfy the typicality requirement irrespective of the varying fact patterns underlying the individual claims." Baby Neal v. Casey, 43 F. 3d 48, 58 (3d Cir.1994). 2006"Actions requesting declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy conduct directed at the class[,]" which is the primary relief sought in a class action brought under Rule 4:32-1(b)(2), "clearly fit this mold." Ibid. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Green v. Morgan Properties
green
1 sentence2017Ibid. 16 A-1247-16T3 whether the fees charged to a particular plaintiff were reasonable in order to prevail on the CFA claim." He concluded that "those questions of fact or law that Plaintiffs assert are common to the class would require a much too individualized inquiry into the facts and circumstances of each class member's eviction proceedings to merit certification." Because some proposed class members "paid attorneys' fees to avoid eviction [and] others did not," the judge further concluded "there may well be no single 'typical' Plaintiff because there may well be no 'typical' class membe | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.