Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 3. LEGISLATURE
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 3.13 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

[Repealed, 1977 c 35 s 21]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2023 · leading case: In re Potash Antitrust Litig., 159 F.R.D. 682 (D. Minn. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Potash Antitrust Litig., 159 F.R.D. 682 (D. Minn. 1995). “Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions, § 3.13 at 3-79 & n. 208 (3d ed. 1992) (explaining that "differences in the methods of purchase or kinds of products purchased among class members have been held not to bar a finding of typical claims” in price-fixing actions, and…”
Jones v. CBE Grp., Inc., 215 F.R.D. 558 (D. Minn. 2003). “Because the letter received by the plaintiff was identical in all material respects to those received by other class members, the court finds the claims of the named plaintiff sufficiently typical of those of the putative class and the typicality requirement of Fed.”
In re Select Comfort Corp. Sec. Litig., 202 F.R.D. 598 (D. Minn. 2001). “1995) (citing Newberg § 3.13). It is also well recognized that the district court has “broad authority to define or redefine the class until judgment is entered or to otherwise alter or amend any class certification order before the decision on the merits.”
Parkhill v. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins., 188 F.R.D. 332 (D. Minn. 1999). “Typicality While the first two prerequisites under Rule 23(a), numerosity and commonality, form the core of the class action concept, the latter two prerequisites, typicality and adequate representation, focus on the desired characteristics of the class representative.”
Kruger v. Lely North Am., Inc. (D. Minn. 2023). “”) (cleaned up); Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation § 3.13 (2010) (“the percentage being based on both the monetary and the nonmonetary value of the judgment or settlement”) (emphasis added)).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.