7 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 44 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 Stinson v. City of New York.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Stinson v. City of New York Anchor | green | “an identifiable class exists if its members can be ascertained by reference to objective criteria.” | 12 |
| 2 | Damassia v. Duane Reade, Inc. | green | “requires that plaintiffs identify some unifying thread among the members' claims that warrants class treatment.” | 7 |
| 3 | Brown v. Kelly | green | “in evaluating a motion for class certification, the district court is required to make a 'definitive assessment of rule 23 requirements, notwithstanding their overlap with merits issues,' and must resolve material factual disputes relevant to each rule 23 requirement.” | 6 |
| 4 | Ligon v. City of New York | green | “the public interest lies with the enforcement of the constitution.” | 6 |
| 5 | Lapin v. Goldman Sachs & Co. | green | “not mandate that the claims of the lead plaintiff be identical to those of all other plaintiffs.” | 6 |
| 6 | Lewis Tree Service, Inc. v. Lucent Technologies Inc. | green | “present evidence that a common factual nexus exists among the purported class.” | 4 |
| 7 | Hamelin v. Faxton-St. Luke's Healthcare | green | “not explicitly spelled out in rule 23, courts in this circuit have added an 'implied requirement of ascertainability' with respect to the class definition.” | 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.