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.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 9 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 Lopez v. City of Santa Fe.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lopez v. City of Santa Fe Anchor | green | “commonality requires only a single issue common to the class, and the fact that 'the claims of individual class members may differ factually should not preclude certification under rule 23(b)(2) of a claim seeking the application of a common policy.” | 3 |
| 2 | In re Intelcom Group, Inc. Securities Litigation | green | “factual differences in the claims of the individual class members should not result in a denial of class certification where common questions of law exist.” | 3 |
| 3 | Schwartz v. Celestial Seasonings, Inc. | green | “any doubt regarding adequacy of representation should be resolved in favor of ... upholding the class.” | 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.