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.
6 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gary Plastic Packaging Corporation v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.green2 sentences2018Holdings, Inc. v. Mowbray , 208 F.3d 288 , 295 (1st Cir. 2000) (observing that "we regard the law as settled *812 that affirmative defenses should be considered in making class certification decisions"); see also note 4, supra. Baldwin Mutual notes that federal courts have concluded that when a class representative's claims are subject to a unique defense, the class should not be certified, either because the situation renders the class representative's claims atypical or because the class representative cannot adequately protect the class's interests in that the class representative will have 2018Holdings, Inc. v. Mowbray , 208 F.3d 288 , 295 (1st Cir. 2000) (observing that "we regard the law as settled *812 that affirmative defenses should be considered in making class certification decisions"); see also note 4, supra. Baldwin Mutual notes that federal courts have concluded that when a class representative's claims are subject to a unique defense, the class should not be certified, either because the situation renders the class representative's claims atypical or because the class representative cannot adequately protect the class's interests in that the class representative will have | 2 | 4 |
Gulley v. Sunbelt Savings, FSBgreen2 sentences2018Holdings, Inc. v. Mowbray , 208 F.3d 288 , 295 (1st Cir. 2000) (observing that "we regard the law as settled *812 that affirmative defenses should be considered in making class certification decisions"); see also note 4, supra. Baldwin Mutual notes that federal courts have concluded that when a class representative's claims are subject to a unique defense, the class should not be certified, either because the situation renders the class representative's claims atypical or because the class representative cannot adequately protect the class's interests in that the class representative will have 2018Holdings, Inc. v. Mowbray , 208 F.3d 288 , 295 (1st Cir. 2000) (observing that "we regard the law as settled *812 that affirmative defenses should be considered in making class certification decisions"); see also note 4, supra. Baldwin Mutual notes that federal courts have concluded that when a class representative's claims are subject to a unique defense, the class should not be certified, either because the situation renders the class representative's claims atypical or because the class representative cannot adequately protect the class's interests in that the class representative will have | 2 | 4 |
Osceola v. Florida Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences2018Holdings, Inc. v. Mowbray , 208 F.3d 288 , 295 (1st Cir. 2000) (observing that "we regard the law as settled *812 that affirmative defenses should be considered in making class certification decisions"); see also note 4, supra. Baldwin Mutual notes that federal courts have concluded that when a class representative's claims are subject to a unique defense, the class should not be certified, either because the situation renders the class representative's claims atypical or because the class representative cannot adequately protect the class's interests in that the class representative will have 2018Holdings, Inc. v. Mowbray , 208 F.3d 288 , 295 (1st Cir. 2000) (observing that "we regard the law as settled *812 that affirmative defenses should be considered in making class certification decisions"); see also note 4, supra. Baldwin Mutual notes that federal courts have concluded that when a class representative's claims are subject to a unique defense, the class should not be certified, either because the situation renders the class representative's claims atypical or because the class representative cannot adequately protect the class's interests in that the class representative will have | 2 | 4 |
Russell v. O'Gradygreen2 sentences2018Holdings, Inc. v. Mowbray , 208 F.3d 288 , 295 (1st Cir. 2000) (observing that "we regard the law as settled *812 that affirmative defenses should be considered in making class certification decisions"); see also note 4, supra. Baldwin Mutual notes that federal courts have concluded that when a class representative's claims are subject to a unique defense, the class should not be certified, either because the situation renders the class representative's claims atypical or because the class representative cannot adequately protect the class's interests in that the class representative will have 2018Holdings, Inc. v. Mowbray , 208 F.3d 288 , 295 (1st Cir. 2000) (observing that "we regard the law as settled *812 that affirmative defenses should be considered in making class certification decisions"); see also note 4, supra. Baldwin Mutual notes that federal courts have concluded that when a class representative's claims are subject to a unique defense, the class should not be certified, either because the situation renders the class representative's claims atypical or because the class representative cannot adequately protect the class's interests in that the class representative will have | 2 | 4 |
Baldwin Mut. Ins. Co. v. McCaingreen2 sentences2018Inasmuch as the class representative appeared to be the only member of the class subject to a res judicata defense, see 260 So. 3d at 812 n. 10, we held that the class representative could not meet the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a), explaining: "As [the defendant] argued in its response to [the plaintiff's] motion for class certification, the application of the doctrine of res judicata to [the plaintiff's] breach-of-contract claims presents the issues whether her claims are subject to a unique defense ( Rule 23(a)(3) ) and whether she would be able to fairly and adequately 2018The trial court erred in certifying [the plaintiff's] action for class treatment because the claims of the purported class representative are subject to a unique defense -- res judicata." 260 So. 3d at 811-12 (footnote omitted). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2023See State v. Smith, 73 Conn. App. 173, 205 , 807 A.2d 500, 519 (2002) (holding that, pursuant to a Connecticut statute that is similar to § 13A- 3-27(b)(2), "the reasonableness [of a police officer's use of deadly force] is to be judged from the perspective of a reasonable police officer" and that the jury should have been instructed accordingly). 2023See State v. Smith, 73 Conn. App. 173, 205 , 807 A.2d 500, 519 (2002) (holding that, pursuant to a Connecticut statute that is similar to § 13A- 3-27(b)(2), "the reasonableness [of a police officer's use of deadly force] is to be judged from the perspective of a reasonable police officer" and that the jury should have been instructed accordingly). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Jenkinsgreen1 sentence2015Additionally, Rule 32 is a unique rule of procedure that is " 'considered to be civil in nature,' ” see Ex parte Jenkins, 972 So.2d 159, 163 (Ala.2005) (quoting Ex parte Hutcherson, 847 So.2d 386, 389 (Ala.2002) (Stuart, J., dissenting)), and specifically limits its application to “defendant[s] who ha[ve] been convicted of a criminal offense.” Furthermore, Rule 32 does not operate in the same, manner as do other rules of criminal procedure; specifically, the filing of a Rule 32 petition institutes an entirely new proceeding in the court of original conviction. . | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Hutchersongreen1 sentence2015Additionally, Rule 32 is a unique rule of procedure that is " 'considered to be civil in nature,' ” see Ex parte Jenkins, 972 So.2d 159, 163 (Ala.2005) (quoting Ex parte Hutcherson, 847 So.2d 386, 389 (Ala.2002) (Stuart, J., dissenting)), and specifically limits its application to “defendant[s] who ha[ve] been convicted of a criminal offense.” Furthermore, Rule 32 does not operate in the same, manner as do other rules of criminal procedure; specifically, the filing of a Rule 32 petition institutes an entirely new proceeding in the court of original conviction. . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Waste Management Holdings, Inc. v. Mowbray
green
2 sentences2018Holdings, Inc. v. Mowbray , 208 F.3d 288 , 295 (1st Cir. 2000) (observing that "we regard the law as settled *812 that affirmative defenses should be considered in making class certification decisions"); see also note 4, supra. Baldwin Mutual notes that federal courts have concluded that when a class representative's claims are subject to a unique defense, the class should not be certified, either because the situation renders the class representative's claims atypical or because the class representative cannot adequately protect the class's interests in that the class representative will have 2018Holdings, Inc. v. Mowbray , 208 F.3d 288 , 295 (1st Cir. 2000) (observing that "we regard the law as settled *812 that affirmative defenses should be considered in making class certification decisions"); see also note 4, supra. Baldwin Mutual notes that federal courts have concluded that when a class representative's claims are subject to a unique defense, the class should not be certified, either because the situation renders the class representative's claims atypical or because the class representative cannot adequately protect the class's interests in that the class representative will have | 4 | 2018–2018 |
Shiring v. Tier Technologies, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018Cohn & Co. v. American Appraisal Assocs., Inc. , 628 F.2d 994 , 999 (7th Cir. 1980) (explaining that the unique-defense rule exists because "[t]he fear is that the named plaintiff will become distracted by the presence of a possible defense applicable only to him so that the representation of the rest of the class will suffer"); Shiring v. Tier Techs., Inc. , 244 F.R.D. 307 , 313 (E.D. 2018Cohn & Co. v. American Appraisal Assocs., Inc. , 628 F.2d 994 , 999 (7th Cir. 1980) (explaining that the unique-defense rule exists because "[t]he fear is that the named plaintiff will become distracted by the presence of a possible defense applicable only to him so that the representation of the rest of the class will suffer"); Shiring v. Tier Techs., Inc. , 244 F.R.D. 307 , 313 (E.D. | 4 | 2018–2018 |
cluster 381414
green
2 sentences2018Cohn & Co. v. American Appraisal Assocs., Inc. , 628 F.2d 994 , 999 (7th Cir. 1980) (explaining that the unique-defense rule exists because "[t]he fear is that the named plaintiff will become distracted by the presence of a possible defense applicable only to him so that the representation of the rest of the class will suffer"); Shiring v. Tier Techs., Inc. , 244 F.R.D. 307 , 313 (E.D. 2018Cohn & Co. v. American Appraisal Assocs., Inc. , 628 F.2d 994 , 999 (7th Cir. 1980) (explaining that the unique-defense rule exists because "[t]he fear is that the named plaintiff will become distracted by the presence of a possible defense applicable only to him so that the representation of the rest of the class will suffer"); Shiring v. Tier Techs., Inc. , 244 F.R.D. 307 , 313 (E.D. | 4 | 2018–2018 |
Hoexter v. Simmons
green
2 sentences2018Cohn & Co. v. American Appraisal Assoc., Inc. , 628 F.2d 994 , 998-99 (7th Cir. 1980) ; Hoexter v. Simmons , 140 F.R.D. 416 , 422-23 (D. 2018Cohn & Co. v. American Appraisal Assoc., Inc. , 628 F.2d 994 , 998-99 (7th Cir. 1980) ; Hoexter v. Simmons , 140 F.R.D. 416 , 422-23 (D. | 4 | 2018–2018 |
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.