9 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 95 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 Spano v. the Boeing Co..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Spano v. the Boeing Co. Anchor | green | “(1) a mandatory class action (either because of the risk of incompatible standards for the party opposing the class or because of the risk that the class adjudication would, as a practical matter, either dispose of the claims of non-parties or substantially impair their interest…” | 20 |
| 2 | Gomez v. St. Vincent Health, Inc. | green | “(1) the adequacy of the named plaintiffs as representatives of the proposed class's myriad members, with their differing and separate interests, and (2) the adequacy of the proposed class counsel.” | 16 |
| 3 | Chicago Teachers Union, Local v. Board of Education of the City | green | “is not free-form, but rather has been carefully scripted by the federal rules of civil procedure.” | 12 |
| 4 | Carol B. Oshana v. Coca-Cola Company, a Delaware Corporation | green | “class definitions must be definite enough that the class can be ascertained.” | 10 |
| 5 | Gomez v. St. Vincent Health, Inc. | green | “this adequate representation inquiry consists of two parts: (1) the adequacy of the named plaintiffs as representatives of the proposed class's myriad members, with their differing and separate interests, and (2) the adequacy of the proposed class counsel.” | 9 |
| 6 | Carol B. Oshana v. Coca-Cola Company, a Delaware Corporation | green | “a claim is typical if it 'arises from the same event or practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class members and . . . the claims are based on the same legal theory.” | 8 |
| 7 | Gomez v. St. Vincent Health, Inc. | green | “consists of two parts: (1) the adequacy of the named plaintiffs as representatives of the proposed class's myriad members, with their differing and separate interests, and (2) the adequacy of the proposed class counsel.” | 7 |
| 8 | Beaton v. Speedypc Software | green | “be one or more common questions of law or fact that are capable of class-wide resolution and are central to the claims' validity.” | 7 |
| 9 | Muro v. Target Corp. | green | “the claims or defenses of the representative party must be typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” | 6 |
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.