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 12 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 M.D. Ex Rel. Stukenberg v. Perry.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | M.D. Ex Rel. Stukenberg v. Perry Anchor | green | “bears the burden of proof to establish that the proposed class satisfies the requirements of rule 23.” | 3 |
| 2 | Richard Tredinnick v. Jackson National Life | green | “tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” | 3 |
| 3 | Heriberto Chavez v. Plan Benefit Services | green | “existence of a class fundamentally alters the rights of present and absent members.” | 3 |
| 4 | Heriberto Chavez v. Plan Benefit Services | green | “explain and apply the substantive law governing the plaintiffs' claims to the relevant facts and defenses,” | 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.