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.
5 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 30 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 Robidoux v. Celani.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Robidoux v. Celani Anchor | green | “a court is not bound by the class definition proposed in the complaint and should not dismiss the action simply because the complaint seeks to define the class too broadly.” | 16 |
| 2 | In Re Sumitomo Copper Litigation Class | green | “alter or modify the class, create subclasses, and decertify the class whenever warranted.” | 5 |
| 3 | In Re Sumitomo Copper Litigation Class | green | “the district court is often in the best position to assess the propriety of the class and has the ability ... to alter or modify the class, create subclasses, and decertify the class whenever warranted.” | 4 |
| 4 | In Re Sumitomo Copper Litigation Class | green | “longstanding view that the district court is often in the best position to assess the propriety of the class and has the ability, pursuant to rule 23(c)(4)(b), to alter or modify the class, create subclasses, and decertify the class whenever warranted.” | 3 |
| 5 | In Re Flag Telecom Holdings Securities Litigation | green | “each class member's claim arises from the same course of events and each class member makes similar legal arguments to prove the defendant's liability.” | 2 |
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.