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.
6 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 60 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 Woodrow Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corporation.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Woodrow Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corporation Anchor | green | “the mere fact that questions peculiar to each individual member of the class remain after the common questions of the defendant's liability have been resolved does not dictate the conclusion that a class action is impermissible.” | 17 |
| 2 | In Re American Medical Systems, Inc. Pfizer, Inc. | green | “a plaintiffs 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 if his or her claims are based on the same legal theory.” | 14 |
| 3 | Woodrow Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corporation | green | “mere fact that questions peculiar to each individual member of the class remain after the common questions of the defendant's liability have been resolved does not dictate the conclusion that a class action is impermissible.” | 9 |
| 4 | Day v. NLO, Inc. | green | “as long as the members of the class have allegedly been affected by a general policy of the defendant and the general policy is the focus of the litigation.” | 9 |
| 5 | Aubrey J. CROSS and John Lee Parks, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NATIONAL TRUST LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee | green | “the experience and ability of counsel for plaintiffs and whether there is any antagonism between the interests of the plaintiffs and other members of the class they seek to represent.” | 7 |
| 6 | Day v. NLO, Inc. | green | “satisfaction of the numerosity requirement does not require that joinder is impossible, but only that plaintiff will suffer a strong litigational hardship or inconvenience if joinder is required.” | 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.