6 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bernard v. First National Bank of Oregongreen2 sentences2013Based on the text of former ORS 13.220(2)(c) and the purpose of the predominance requirement, the court held that whether an action can be maintained as a class action depends on whether it is “‘likely’” that the action will involve individual adjudications “so ‘numerous’ as to make a class action impractical by placing too great a burden upon the court.” 275 Or at 158 -59 (quoting former ORS 13.220(2)(c)). 2013The court observed that class actions were intended to be time-saving consolidation devices for courts and that the predominance requirement was “intended to prevent cases being certified as class actions when questions concerning individual claims would be so numerous as to impose an impractical burden upon the court thereby destroying the value of consolidation.” 275 Or at 152 . | 2 | 3 |
In Re: Monumentalgreen1 sentence2013Co., 365 F3d 408, 421 (5th Cir 2004) (“Though individual class members whose claims are shown to fall outside the relevant statute of limitations are barred from recovery, this does not establish that individual issues predominate, particularly in the face of defendants’ common scheme of fraudulent concealment.”); In re Visa Check /Mastermoney Antitrust Litigation, 280 F3d 124, 139 (2d Cir 2001) (“Common issues may predominate when liability can be determined on a class-wide basis, even when there are some individualized damages issues.”); American Law Institute, Principles of the Law of Aggre | 1 | 1 |
cluster 776519green1 sentence2013Co., 365 F3d 408, 421 (5th Cir 2004) (“Though individual class members whose claims are shown to fall outside the relevant statute of limitations are barred from recovery, this does not establish that individual issues predominate, particularly in the face of defendants’ common scheme of fraudulent concealment.”); In re Visa Check /Mastermoney Antitrust Litigation, 280 F3d 124, 139 (2d Cir 2001) (“Common issues may predominate when liability can be determined on a class-wide basis, even when there are some individualized damages issues.”); American Law Institute, Principles of the Law of Aggre | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc.
green
2 sentences2026The point of asking whether common issues predominate is to predict the degree to which litigation of the controversy will require delving into individualized proof or, conversely, the degree to which the issues lend themselves to resolution through common proof—that is, proof for one individual class member will be proof for all.” Pearson, 358 Or at 114 . 2016Although, how “the predominance inquiry is answered * * * is a key factor in the trial court’s discretionary assessment of whether a class action will be a fair and efficient means of litigating the case, and thus superior over other available means to resolve the controversy,” Pearson, 358 Or at 111 , ultimately, the relevant question is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it determined superiority of a class action under ORCP 32 B. | 2 | 2016–2026 |
Delgado v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc.
green
1 sentence2016The single predominance factor is reviewed for legal error, Delgado, 260 Or App at 489 , but superiority, which involves all the factors listed under ORCP 32 B, is reviewed for abuse of discretion, Pearson, 358 Or at 106 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Derenco, Inc. v. Benj. Franklin Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n
green
1 sentence2013As the Supreme Court recognized, borrowers who knew, at the time that they obtained their loans, how the defendant would use their deposits “would be bound by their knowledge.” 281 Or at 570 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Guinasso v. Pacific First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n
green
1 sentence2013The defendant asserted that it had not, because there was, in its view, “abundant evidence that a substantial percentage of borrowers were aware when they obtained their loans that [the defendant] would retain the income from its investment of the reserve payments.” Id. at 275 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Development Commission
green
2 sentences1995Thus, LUBA’s interpretation impermissibly nullifies the predominance test in Goal 3 and renders OAR 660-33-020(l)(a)(C) essentially superfluous. ‘LCDC is not, however, free to amend the goals through interpretation.’ 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Lane Co.), 305 Or 384, 400 , 752 P2d 271 (1988). 1995Thus, LUBA’s interpretation impermissibly nullifies the predominance test in Goal 3 and renders OAR 660-33-020(l)(a)(C) essentially superfluous. ‘LCDC is not, however, free to amend the goals through interpretation.’ 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Lane Co.), 305 Or 384, 400 , 752 P2d 271 (1988). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.