7 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 2006–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina 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 |
|---|---|---|
Victor Parsons v. Charles Ryangreen2 sentences2022But none of these factors are relevant to a class certification motion in a case that challenges a statewide policy “as a whole.” See Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 , 505 n.3 (2011) (addressing a class action challenge to a policy “taken as a whole”); see also Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 678 (9th Cir. 2014) (“That inquiry does not require us to determine the effect of those policies and practices upon any individual class member (or class members) or to undertake any other kind of individualized determination.”). 2022But none of these factors are relevant to a class certification motion in a case that challenges a statewide policy “as a whole.” See Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 , 505 n.3 (2011) (addressing a class action challenge to a policy “taken as a whole”); see also Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 678 (9th Cir. 2014) (“That inquiry does not require us to determine the effect of those policies and practices upon any individual class member (or class members) or to undertake any other kind of individualized determination.”). | 3 | 3 |
Comcast Corp. v. Behrendgreen1 sentence2025“The class action is an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only.” Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 33 (2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Ehrenhaus v. Bakergreen1 sentence2025Because a class-action settlement binds individuals who have not appeared in the litigation, it “raises unique due process concerns” and requires “court approval.” Ehrenhaus v. Baker, 216 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurantgreen2 sentences2014It no more eliminates those parties’ right to pursue their statutory remedy than did federal law before its adoption of the class action for legal relief in 1938[.] *321 Id. at_, 133 S.Ct. at 2311 , 186 L.Ed.2d at 426 (citations omitted). 2014It no more eliminates those parties’ right to pursue their statutory remedy than did federal law before its adoption of the class action for legal relief in 1938[.] *321 Id. at_, 133 S.Ct. at 2311 , 186 L.Ed.2d at 426 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Samuel Muriithi v. Shuttle Express, Inc.green1 sentence2014Muriithi v. Shuttle Exp., Inc., 712 F.3d 173, 180-81 (4th Cir. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
Terry Johnson v. West Suburban Bank Tele-Cash Inc. County Bank of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware Tele-Cash Inc. County Bank of Rehoboth Beach, Delawaregreen2 sentences2008Suburban Bank, 225 F.3d 366, 374 (3d Cir.2000) (finding that class action waivers in arbitration proceedings do not "necessarily choke off the supply of lawyers willing to pursue claims on behalf of debtors"), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1145 , 121 S.Ct. 1081 , 148 L.Ed.2d 957 (2001); see also Livingston v. Assocs. 2008Quoting from an earlier decision, the Third Circuit observed "`[w]hatever the benefits of class actions, the FAA requires piecemeal resolution when necessary to give effect to an arbitration agreement.'" Id. (quoting Johnson, 225 F.3d at 375 (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Snowden v. Checkpoint Check Cashinggreen2 sentences2008See Jenkins, 400 F.3d at 878 (recognizing that the availability of attorney's fees provides plaintiffs with adequate access); Snowden v. CheckPoint Check Cashing, 290 F.3d 631, 638 (4th Cir.) (rejecting challenge to a class action waiver based on the plaintiffs' argument that the small amount of individual damages sought would make them unable to obtain legal representation when attorney's fees were available), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1087 , 123 S.Ct. 695 , 154 L.Ed.2d 631 (2002); Johnson v. W. 2008See Jenkins, 400 F.3d at 878 (recognizing that the availability of attorney’s fees provides plaintiffs with adequate access); Snowden v. Checkpoint Check Cashing, 290 F.3d 631, 638 (4th Cir.) (rejecting challenge to a class action waiver based on the plaintiffs’ argument that the small amount of individual damages sought would make them unable to obtain legal representation when attorney’s fees were available), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1087 , 123 S. Ct. 695 , 154 L. | 1 | 1 |
Charlene Jenkins, and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. First American Cash Advance of Georgia, Llc, First National Bank in Brookingsgreen2 sentences2008See Jenkins, 400 F.3d at 878 (recognizing that the availability of attorney's fees provides plaintiffs with adequate access); Snowden v. CheckPoint Check Cashing, 290 F.3d 631, 638 (4th Cir.) (rejecting challenge to a class action waiver based on the plaintiffs' argument that the small amount of individual damages sought would make them unable to obtain legal representation when attorney's fees were available), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1087 , 123 S.Ct. 695 , 154 L.Ed.2d 631 (2002); Johnson v. W. 2008As to the class action waiver, even though none of the loans was greater than $500, id. at 871 , the appeals court concluded that the availability of attorney's fees was sufficient incentive for lawyers to represent consumers under the applicable arbitration agreement, id. at 878 . | 1 | 1 |
Luna v. Household Finance Corp. IIIgreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Kristian v. Comcast Corp., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 9881 (1st Cir. Apr. 20, 2006) (“a class mechanism bar can impermissibly frustrate the prosecution of claims in any forum, arbitral or judicial”); Ting v. AT&T, 319 F.3d 1126 , 1150 (9th Cir. 2003) (footnote omitted) (“we affirm the district court’s conclusion that the class-action ban violates California’s unconscionability law”); Luna v. Household Finance Corp. III, 236 F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1179 (W.D. 2006See, e.g., Kristian v. Comcast Corp., 446 F.3d 25 (1st Cir.2006) ("a class mechanism bar can impermissibly frustrate the prosecution of claims in any forum, arbitral or judicial"); Ting v. AT&T, 319 F.3d 1126 , 1150 (9th Cir.2003) (footnote omitted) ("we affirm the district court's conclusion that the class-action ban violates California's unconscionability law"); Luna v. Household Finance Corp. III, 236 F.Supp.2d 1166, 1179 (W.D.Wash.2002) (prohibition on class actions rendered arbitration clause unconscionable); Lozada v. Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc., 91 F.Supp.2d 1087, 1105 (W.D.Mich.2000) ( | 1 | 1 |
Adkins v. Labor Ready, Incorporatedgreen2 sentences2006See Adkins v. Labor Ready, Inc., 303 F.3d 496, 503 (4th Cir. 2002) (A class action waiver “cannot by itself suffice to defeat the strong congressional preference for an arbitral forum.”). 2006See Adkins v. Labor Ready, Inc., 303 F.3d 496, 503 (4th Cir.2002) (A class action waiver "cannot by itself suffice to defeat the strong congressional preference for an arbitral forum."). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 794138green2 sentences2006See, e.g., Kristian v. Comcast Corp., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 9881 (1st Cir. Apr. 20, 2006) (“a class mechanism bar can impermissibly frustrate the prosecution of claims in any forum, arbitral or judicial”); Ting v. AT&T, 319 F.3d 1126 , 1150 (9th Cir. 2003) (footnote omitted) (“we affirm the district court’s conclusion that the class-action ban violates California’s unconscionability law”); Luna v. Household Finance Corp. III, 236 F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1179 (W.D. 2006See, e.g., Kristian v. Comcast Corp., 446 F.3d 25 (1st Cir.2006) ("a class mechanism bar can impermissibly frustrate the prosecution of claims in any forum, arbitral or judicial"); Ting v. AT&T, 319 F.3d 1126 , 1150 (9th Cir.2003) (footnote omitted) ("we affirm the district court's conclusion that the class-action ban violates California's unconscionability law"); Luna v. Household Finance Corp. III, 236 F.Supp.2d 1166, 1179 (W.D.Wash.2002) (prohibition on class actions rendered arbitration clause unconscionable); Lozada v. Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc., 91 F.Supp.2d 1087, 1105 (W.D.Mich.2000) ( | 1 | 1 |
Lozada v. Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc.green1 sentence2006See, e.g., Kristian v. Comcast Corp., 446 F.3d 25 (1st Cir.2006) ("a class mechanism bar can impermissibly frustrate the prosecution of claims in any forum, arbitral or judicial"); Ting v. AT&T, 319 F.3d 1126 , 1150 (9th Cir.2003) (footnote omitted) ("we affirm the district court's conclusion that the class-action ban violates California's unconscionability law"); Luna v. Household Finance Corp. III, 236 F.Supp.2d 1166, 1179 (W.D.Wash.2002) (prohibition on class actions rendered arbitration clause unconscionable); Lozada v. Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc., 91 F.Supp.2d 1087, 1105 (W.D.Mich.2000) ( | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Plata
green
2 sentences2022But none of these factors are relevant to a class certification motion in a case that challenges a statewide policy “as a whole.” See Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 , 505 n.3 (2011) (addressing a class action challenge to a policy “taken as a whole”); see also Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 678 (9th Cir. 2014) (“That inquiry does not require us to determine the effect of those policies and practices upon any individual class member (or class members) or to undertake any other kind of individualized determination.”). 2022But none of these factors are relevant to a class certification motion in a case that challenges a statewide policy “as a whole.” See Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 , 505 n.3 (2011) (addressing a class action challenge to a policy “taken as a whole”); see also Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 678 (9th Cir. 2014) (“That inquiry does not require us to determine the effect of those policies and practices upon any individual class member (or class members) or to undertake any other kind of individualized determination.”). | 3 | 2022–2022 |
At&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion
green
1 sentence2014Id. *320 C. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Jinks v. Richland County, South Carolina
green
2 sentences2008See Jenkins, 400 F.3d at 878 (recognizing that the availability of attorney's fees provides plaintiffs with adequate access); Snowden v. CheckPoint Check Cashing, 290 F.3d 631, 638 (4th Cir.) (rejecting challenge to a class action waiver based on the plaintiffs' argument that the small amount of individual damages sought would make them unable to obtain legal representation when attorney's fees were available), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1087 , 123 S.Ct. 695 , 154 L.Ed.2d 631 (2002); Johnson v. W. 2008See Jenkins, 400 F.3d at 878 (recognizing that the availability of attorney’s fees provides plaintiffs with adequate access); Snowden v. Checkpoint Check Cashing, 290 F.3d 631, 638 (4th Cir.) (rejecting challenge to a class action waiver based on the plaintiffs’ argument that the small amount of individual damages sought would make them unable to obtain legal representation when attorney’s fees were available), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1087 , 123 S. Ct. 695 , 154 L. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Dellinger v. Tennessee
green
2 sentences2008See Jenkins, 400 F.3d at 878 (recognizing that the availability of attorney's fees provides plaintiffs with adequate access); Snowden v. CheckPoint Check Cashing, 290 F.3d 631, 638 (4th Cir.) (rejecting challenge to a class action waiver based on the plaintiffs' argument that the small amount of individual damages sought would make them unable to obtain legal representation when attorney's fees were available), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1087 , 123 S.Ct. 695 , 154 L.Ed.2d 631 (2002); Johnson v. W. 2008See Jenkins, 400 F.3d at 878 (recognizing that the availability of attorney’s fees provides plaintiffs with adequate access); Snowden v. Checkpoint Check Cashing, 290 F.3d 631, 638 (4th Cir.) (rejecting challenge to a class action waiver based on the plaintiffs’ argument that the small amount of individual damages sought would make them unable to obtain legal representation when attorney’s fees were available), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1087 , 123 S. Ct. 695 , 154 L. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio v. Siler-Khodr
green
2 sentences2008See Jenkins, 400 F.3d at 878 (recognizing that the availability of attorney's fees provides plaintiffs with adequate access); Snowden v. CheckPoint Check Cashing, 290 F.3d 631, 638 (4th Cir.) (rejecting challenge to a class action waiver based on the plaintiffs' argument that the small amount of individual damages sought would make them unable to obtain legal representation when attorney's fees were available), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1087 , 123 S.Ct. 695 , 154 L.Ed.2d 631 (2002); Johnson v. W. 2008See Jenkins, 400 F.3d at 878 (recognizing that the availability of attorney’s fees provides plaintiffs with adequate access); Snowden v. Checkpoint Check Cashing, 290 F.3d 631, 638 (4th Cir.) (rejecting challenge to a class action waiver based on the plaintiffs’ argument that the small amount of individual damages sought would make them unable to obtain legal representation when attorney’s fees were available), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1087 , 123 S. Ct. 695 , 154 L. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
New Pulaski Co. v. Mayor of Baltimore
green
1 sentence2008Suburban Bank, 225 F.3d 366, 374 (3d Cir.2000) (finding that class action waivers in arbitration proceedings do not "necessarily choke off the supply of lawyers willing to pursue claims on behalf of debtors"), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1145 , 121 S.Ct. 1081 , 148 L.Ed.2d 957 (2001); see also Livingston v. Assocs. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Gibbs v. Norton
green
1 sentence2008Suburban Bank, 225 F.3d 366, 374 (3d Cir.2000) (finding that class action waivers in arbitration proceedings do not "necessarily choke off the supply of lawyers willing to pursue claims on behalf of debtors"), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1145 , 121 S.Ct. 1081 , 148 L.Ed.2d 957 (2001); see also Livingston v. Assocs. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Elkins v. Pharmacy Corp. of America
green
1 sentence2008Suburban Bank, 225 F.3d 366, 374 (3d Cir.2000) (finding that class action waivers in arbitration proceedings do not "necessarily choke off the supply of lawyers willing to pursue claims on behalf of debtors"), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1145 , 121 S.Ct. 1081 , 148 L.Ed.2d 957 (2001); see also Livingston v. Assocs. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Gay v. CreditInform
green
2 sentences2008The court's analysis focused on the class action waiver contained in the agreement, id. at 392-95 , noting the "competing interests" at play: "the promotion of arbitration agreements and the protection of class actions prohibited by such agreements," id. at 394 . 2008The court's analysis focused on the class action waiver contained in the agreement, id. at 392-95 , noting the "competing interests" at play: "the promotion of arbitration agreements and the protection of class actions prohibited by such agreements," id. at 394 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Ting v. At&t
green
2 sentences2006See, e.g., Kristian v. Comcast Corp., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 9881 (1st Cir. Apr. 20, 2006) (“a class mechanism bar can impermissibly frustrate the prosecution of claims in any forum, arbitral or judicial”); Ting v. AT&T, 319 F.3d 1126 , 1150 (9th Cir. 2003) (footnote omitted) (“we affirm the district court’s conclusion that the class-action ban violates California’s unconscionability law”); Luna v. Household Finance Corp. III, 236 F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1179 (W.D. 2006See, e.g., Kristian v. Comcast Corp., 446 F.3d 25 (1st Cir.2006) ("a class mechanism bar can impermissibly frustrate the prosecution of claims in any forum, arbitral or judicial"); Ting v. AT&T, 319 F.3d 1126 , 1150 (9th Cir.2003) (footnote omitted) ("we affirm the district court's conclusion that the class-action ban violates California's unconscionability law"); Luna v. Household Finance Corp. III, 236 F.Supp.2d 1166, 1179 (W.D.Wash.2002) (prohibition on class actions rendered arbitration clause unconscionable); Lozada v. Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc., 91 F.Supp.2d 1087, 1105 (W.D.Mich.2000) ( | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.