Cases pin-citing Robin Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc. · Go Syfert
Search » Famous passages » Cases pin-citing Robin Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc.

Cases pin-citing Robin Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc.

Robin Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc.  ·  2001  ·  16 pinpoint citations from 16 cases, 15 distinct passages.

M.D. v. Reykdal  ·  2024-11-22  ·  W.D. Washington  ·  pin 253 F.3d at 1180
“Class certification under 19 Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate only where the primary relief sought is declaratory or injunctive.”
M.D. v. Reykdal  ·  2024-11-20  ·  W.D. Washington  ·  pin 253 F.3d at 1180
“Class certification under 16 Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate only where the primary relief sought is declaratory or injunctive.”
Boone v. Amazon Services, LLC  ·  2024-11-07  ·  E.D. California  ·  pin 253 F.3d at 1180
“In determining superiority, 2 courts must consider the four factors of Rule 23(b)(3).”
Kryzhanovskiy v. Amazon.com Services, Inc.  ·  2024-09-13  ·  E.D. California  ·  pin 253 F.3d at 1180
“In determining superiority, 13 courts must consider the four factors of Rule 23(b)(3).”
Dunne v. Quantum Residential Inc  ·  2024-06-18  ·  W.D. Washington  ·  pin 253 F.3d at 1180
“Where damages suffered by each putative class 18 member are not large, this factor weighs in favor of certifying a class action.”
Vasquez v. Leprino Foods Company  ·  2024-06-17  ·  E.D. California  ·  pin 253 F.3d at 1180
“In determining superiority, 7 courts must consider the four factors of Rule 23(b)(3).”
Boone v. Amazon Services, LLC  ·  2024-05-22  ·  E.D. California  ·  pin 253 F.3d at 1180
“In determining superiority, 2 courts must consider the four factors of Rule 23(b)(3).”
Kryzhanovskiy v. Amazon.com Services, Inc.  ·  2024-03-22  ·  E.D. California  ·  pin 253 F.3d at 1180
“In determining superiority, 27 courts must consider the four factors of Rule 23(b)(3).”
Vasquez v. Leprino Foods Company  ·  2024-02-12  ·  E.D. California  ·  pin 253 F.3d at 1180
“In determining superiority, 11 courts must consider the four factors of Rule 23(b)(3).”
Gatchalian v. Atlantic Recovery Solutions, LLC  ·  2023-11-16  ·  N.D. California  ·  pin 253 F.3d at 1180
“In determining superiority, courts 4 must consider the four factors of Rule 23(b)(3).”
Tavares v. Cargill, Incorporated  ·  2023-10-11  ·  E.D. California  ·  pin 253 F.3d at 1180
“the party seeking 12 certification . . . bears the burden of showing she has met each of the four requirements of Rule 13 23(a) and at least one of the requirements of Rule 23(b)”
Aaron H. Fleck Revocable Trust, The v. First Western Trust Bank  ·  2022-12-27  ·  D. Colorado  ·  pin 253 F.3d at 1180
“Certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) is . . . not appropriate in an action for damages.”
Taylor v. Populus Group, LLC  ·  2022-08-02  ·  S.D. California  ·  pin 253 F.3d at 1180
“Where damages suffered 8 by each putative class member are not large, this factor weighs in favor of certifying a class 9 action.”
Maney v. Brown  ·  2022-04-01  ·  D. Oregon  ·  pin 253 F.3d at 1180
“If the court finds that several other actions already are pending . . . a class action may not be appropriate . . . unless the other suits can be enjoined[.]”
Lott v. Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government  ·  2021-03-17  ·  W.D. Kentucky  ·  pin 253 F.3d at 1180
“Where damages suffered by each putative class member are not large, this factor weighs in favor of certifying a class action.”