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.
7 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 28 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 Pipefitters Local 636 Insurance Fund v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pipefitters Local 636 Insurance Fund v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Anchor | green | “given the huge amount of judicial resources expended by class actions, particular care in their issuance is required.” | 8 |
| 2 | Crosby v. Social Security Administration | green | “sufficiently definite so that it is administratively feasible for the court to determine whether a particular individual is a member.” | 5 |
| 3 | Alea London Limited vs America Home Services, Inc. | green | “the tcpa is essentially a strict liability statute” | 3 |
| 4 | Critchfield Physical Therapy v. Taranto Group, Inc. | green | “directed the district court to modify the class definition to clarify which parties constitute the plaintiff class.” | 3 |
| 5 | Critchfield Physical Therapy v. Taranto Group, Inc. | green | “is nonsensical because it does not distinguish between the owner of a fax machine and all those people who make use of that fax machine.” | 3 |
| 6 | Kopff v. World Research Group, LLC | green | “might think otherwise" were the fax addressed” | 3 |
| 7 | In re Onstar Contract Litigation | green | “the existence of an ascertainable class of persons to be represented by the proposed class representative is an implied prerequisite of federal rule of civ procedure 23.” | 3 |
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.