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 2 cases, quoted by 13 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 Camilotes v. Resurrection Health Care Corp..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Camilotes v. Resurrection Health Care Corp. Anchor | green | “(1) whether the plaintiffs share similar or disparate factual and employment settings; (2) whether the various affirmative defenses available to the defendant would have to be individually applied to each plaintiff; and (3) fairness and procedural concerns.” | 4 |
| 2 | Camilotes v. Resurrection Health Care Corp. | green | “courts typically consider such factors as location, job duties, supervision, and policies or practices that bind the plaintiffs' claims together.” | 4 |
| 3 | Camilotes v. Resurrection Health Care Corp. | green | “need not be identically situated” | 3 |
| 4 | Hundt v. Directsat USA, LLC | green | “the third and final factor requires the court to consider whether proceeding as a collective would create fairness or procedural benefits.” | 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.