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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 10 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 Daniel Greenberg v. Procter & Gamble Company.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Daniel Greenberg v. Procter & Gamble Company Anchor | green | “measure the adequacy of the class members' representation based upon two factors: '1) the representatives must have common interests with unnamed members of the class, and 2) it must appear that the representatives will vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qua…” | 5 |
| 2 | Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v. ASD Specialty Healthcare, Inc. | green | “in discerning whether a putative class meets the predominance inquiry, courts are to assess 'the legal or factual questions that qualify each class member's case as a genuine controversy,' and assess whether those questions are 'subject to generalized proof, and thus applicable …” | 5 |
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.