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 24 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 Michael Postawko v. Missouri Dept of Corrections.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Michael Postawko v. Missouri Dept of Corrections Anchor | green | “typicality is fairly easily met so long as other class members have claims similar to the named plaintiff.” | 5 |
| 2 | Laura Powers v. Credit Management Services, In | green | “commonality requires a showing that class members have suffered the same injury.” | 4 |
| 3 | Rudy Webb v. Exxon Mobil Corporation | green | “must be of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution - which means that 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.” | 3 |
| 4 | Michael Postawko v. Missouri Dept of Corrections | green | “factual variations in the individual claims will not normally preclude class certification if the claim arises from the same event or course of conduct as the class claims and gives rise to the same legal or remedial theory.” | 3 |
| 5 | Stuart Ex Rel. Situated v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. | green | “the predominance inquiry tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” | 3 |
| 6 | Custom Hair Designs by Sandy v. Central Payment Co. | green | “predominance gauges the relationship between common and individual questions in a case.” | 3 |
| 7 | Roderick Ford v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. | green | “an individual question is one on which evidence varies from member to member; a common question is one where the same evidence suffices for each member to make a prima facie showing.” | 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.