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.
10 canonical passages across 8 cases, quoted by 70 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 Heaven v. Trust Company Bank.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Heaven v. Trust Company Bank Anchor | green | “the burden of establishing these requirements is on the plaintiff who seeks to certify the suit as a class action.” | 10 |
| 2 | Williams v. Mohawk Industries, Inc. | green | “the claim of a class representative is typical if 'the claims or defenses of the class and the class representative arise from the same event or pattern or practice and are based on the same legal theory.” | 9 |
| 3 | Williams v. Mohawk Industries, Inc. | green | “under the rule 23(a)(2) commonality requirement, a class action must involve issues that are susceptible to class-wide proof.” | 8 |
| 4 | Fitzpatrick v. General Mills, Inc. | green | “the putative class must meet each of the four requirements specified in rule 23(a), as well as at least one of the three requirements set forth in rule 23(b).” | 8 |
| 5 | Adam Karhu v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | green | “the putative class must meet each of the four requirements specified in rule 23(a), as well as at least one of the three requirements set forth in rule 23(b).” | 8 |
| 6 | Charles J. Piazza, Jr. v. EBSCO Industries, Inc. | green | “sufficient nexus exists between the legal claims of the named class representatives and those of individual class members to warrant class certification.” | 7 |
| 7 | Williams v. Mohawk Industries, Inc. | green | “the claims or defenses of the class and the class representative arise from the same event or pattern or practice and are based on the same legal theory.” | 6 |
| 8 | Fabricant v. Roebuck | green | “rule 23(a)(4)'s adequacy requirement has two components: (1) the class representative has no interests antagonistic to the class; and (2) class counsel possesses the competence to undertake the litigation.” | 5 |
| 9 | Fogarazzo v. Lehman Bros. | green | “a manageable process that does not require much, if any, individual inquiries.” | 5 |
| 10 | Ruderman v. Washington National Insurance | green | “so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” | 4 |
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.