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.
4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 14 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 Hipp v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hipp v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company Anchor | green | “the decision to create an opt-in class under 216(b), like the decision to certify a class under rule 23, remains soundly within the discretion of the district court” | 5 |
| 2 | Joanie Dybach v. State of Florida Department of Corrections | green | “similarly situated' with respect to their job requirements and with regard to their pay provisions.” | 3 |
| 3 | Joanie Dybach v. State of Florida Department of Corrections | green | “the district court should satisfy itself that there are other employees of the defendant-employer who desire to 'opt-in' and are 'similarly situated' with respect to their job requirements and with regard to their pay provisions.” | 3 |
| 4 | Brooks v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc. | green | “it is clear that any claims of the proposed opt-in plaintiffs would present disparate factual and employment settings” | 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.