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 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2021 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dale v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.green2 sentences2021Yet “[t]he primary focus of the superiority analysis is the efficiency of the class action over other available methods of adjudication.” Dale v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 204 S.W.3d 151, 182 (Mo. App. 2006). 2015“The superiority requirement requires the trial court to balance, in terms of fairness and efficiency, the merits of a class action in resolving the controversy against those of alternative available methods of adjudication.” Dale, 204 S.W.3d at 181 (internal quotation omitted). | 3 | 3 |
David M. Elsea and Jeanne Morgan, Individually and as Class Representatives v. U.S. Engineering company, a corporation, and Jackson County, Missourigreen2 sentences2021Class actions which aggregate small claims that could not otherwise be brought are exactly the type of claims that satisfy the superiority requirement. 463 S.W.3d at 423 (internal citations and punctuation omitted). 2019In balancing the relative merits of class action versus alternative methods of adjudicating the controversy, courts should consider the inability of the poor or uninformed to enforce their rights, and the improbability that large numbers of class members would possess the initiative to litigate individually. 463 S.W.3d 409, 423 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Hope v. Nissan North America, Inc.green1 sentence2015Accordingly, the circuit court abused its discretion in finding that the superiority requirement was not met. *425 Class Defínition — Definiteness and Membership While Rule 52.08 does not explicitly demand a proper class definition, “such a requirement clearly underlies each of the mandatory elements for certification.” Hope, 353 S.W.3d at 77 (internal quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Citgo Refining & Marketing, Inc. v. Garzagreen1 sentence2006Citgo Refining & Mkt, Inc. v. Garza, 187 S.W.3d 45, 70 (Tex.Ct. | 1 | 1 |
cluster 718203green1 sentence2006Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 83 F.3d 610, 632 (3rd Cir.1996). | 1 | 1 |
Eovaldi v. First National Bankgreen1 sentence2006Eovaldi v. First Nat’l Bank of Chicago, 57 F.R.D. 545, 547 (N.D.Ill.1972). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hale v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015“Class actions which aggregate small claims that could not otherwise be brought are exactly the type of claims that satisfy the superiority requirement.” Hale, 231 S.W.3d at 229 (citing Deposit Guar. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Deposit Guaranty National Bank v. Roper
green
2 sentences2015Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 , 100 S.Ct. 1166 , 63 L.Ed.2d 427 (1980)). 2015Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 , 100 S.Ct. 1166 , 63 L.Ed.2d 427 (1980)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.