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.
10 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 964 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor Anchor | green | “the rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” | 211 |
| 2 | Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor | green | “tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” | 154 |
| 3 | Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes | green | “rule 23 does not set forth a mere pleading standard.” | 152 |
| 4 | Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor | green | “serves to uncover conflicts of interest between named parties and the class they seek to represent.” | 108 |
| 5 | Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes | green | “commonality requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class members 'have suffered the same injury.” | 83 |
| 6 | Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes | green | “determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” | 78 |
| 7 | Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds | green | “merits questions may be considered to the extent-but only to the extent-that they are relevant to determining whether the rule 23 prerequisites for class certification are satisfied.” | 59 |
| 8 | Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds | green | “rule 23 grants courts no license to engage in free-ranging merits inquiries at the certification stage.” | 54 |
| 9 | Adamson v. Bowen | green | “differing fact situations of class members do not defeat typicality under rule 23(a)(3) so long as the claims of the class representative and class members are based on the same legal or remedial theory.” | 35 |
| 10 | Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds | green | “merits questions may be considered to the extent - but only to the extent - that they are relevant to determining whether the rule 23 prerequisites for class certification are satisfied.” | 30 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.