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 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2009 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chandler v. Southwest Jeep-Eagle, Inc.green1 sentence2009The trial court acknowledged that Unocal had identified sixty-six easement property owners, which is unlikely to change on remand. "[The difficulty inherent in joining as few as 40 class members should raise a presumption that joinder is impracticable." Alba Conte & Herbert Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions § 8:5, at 247 (4th ed.2002); see also Chandler v. Southwest Jeep-Eagle, Inc., 162 F.R.D. 302, 307 (N.D.Ill.1995) ("[Wlhether the numerosity requirement is satisfied is extremely fact-specific. | 1 | 1 |
Julie Olden, Richard Hunter, Wilbur Bleau, and All Others Similarly Situated v. Lafarge Corp.green1 sentence2007See Olden v. LaFarge Corp., 208 F.R.D. 254, 269 (E.D.Mich.2001), aff'd, 383 F.3d 495 (6th Cir. 2004); Civic Ass'n of Deaf, Inc. v. Giuliani, 915 F.Supp. 622 , 632 (S.D.N.Y.1996)(court may make "common sense assumptions" to support a finding of numerosity); Alba Conte & Herbert Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions § 3:8, at 225 (4th ed.2002) ("a common sense approach is contemplated by Rule 283"). | 1 | 1 |
Riordan v. Barneygreen1 sentence1991See Moore’s Federal Practice, supra, at ¶ 23.05; Riordan v. Smith Barney, 113 F.R.D. 60, 62 (N.D.Ill.1986) (when class is large, numbers alone are dispositive). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
LaBerenz v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2009LaBerenz, 181 P.3d at 334 ; Jackson, 231 P.3d at 24 . 2009Id. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Jackson v. Unocal Corp.
green
1 sentence2009LaBerenz, 181 P.3d at 334 ; Jackson, 231 P.3d at 24 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
CIVIC ASS'N OF DEAF OF NYC v. Giuliani
green
1 sentence2007See Olden v. LaFarge Corp., 208 F.R.D. 254, 269 (E.D.Mich.2001), aff'd, 383 F.3d 495 (6th Cir. 2004); Civic Ass'n of Deaf, Inc. v. Giuliani, 915 F.Supp. 622 , 632 (S.D.N.Y.1996)(court may make "common sense assumptions" to support a finding of numerosity); Alba Conte & Herbert Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions § 3:8, at 225 (4th ed.2002) ("a common sense approach is contemplated by Rule 283"). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Cook v. Rockwell International Corp.
green
1 sentence2007"The numerosity requirement requires examination of the specific facts of each case and imposes no absolute limitations." Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., supra, 151 F.R.D. at 384 (quoting Gen. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Feigin v. Securities America, Inc.
green
1 sentence2001Feigin, 992 P.2d at 681 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Borwick v. Bober
green
1 sentence1990Cf. Borwick v. Bober, 34 CoIo.App. 423, 529 P.2d 1351 (1974) (where only claim is based on fraud and plaintiff failed to demonstrate number of persons to whom representation was made, there was no proof of the numerosity requirement of 23(a)(1)). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.