19 Cited authorities

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
564 U.S. 338 (2011) Cited 6,629 times 505 Legal Analyses
Holding in Rule 23 context that “[w]ithout some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims for relief will produce a common answer”
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor
521 U.S. 591 (1997) Cited 6,948 times 69 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts are "bound to enforce" Rule 23's certification requirements, even where it means decertifying a class after they had reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval
Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon
457 U.S. 147 (1982) Cited 5,669 times 33 Legal Analyses
Holding that named plaintiff must prove “much more than the validity of his own claim”; the individual plaintiff must show that “the individual's claim and the class claims will share common questions of law or fact and that the individual's claim will be typical of the class claims,” explicitly referencing the “commonality” and “typicality” requirements of Rule 23
Trevizo v. Adams
455 F.3d 1155 (10th Cir. 2006) Cited 310 times
Holding that the party seeking certification “must show ‘under a strict burden of proof' that all four requirements are clearly met” (quoting Reed v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 1307, 1309 (10th Cir. 1988))
J.B. ex Rel. Hart v. Valdez
186 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 1999) Cited 333 times
Holding that continuing jurisdiction of juvenile court and six month periodic review hearings constituted an ongoing state judicial proceeding
Shook v. El Paso Cty.
386 F.3d 963 (10th Cir. 2004) Cited 257 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the lower court erred in requiring ascertainability of a Rule 23(b) class and explaining that "while the lack of identifiability is a factor that may defeat Rule 23(b) class certification, such is not the case with respect to class certification under Rule 23(b)"
Deiter v. Microsoft Corp.
436 F.3d 461 (4th Cir. 2006) Cited 185 times
Stating that an antitrust injury is an element of an antitrust plaintiff's prima facie case
Reed v. Bowen
849 F.2d 1307 (10th Cir. 1988) Cited 172 times
Holding that district court "determine whether mooted named plaintiffs will remain adequate class representatives"
Rex v. Owens
585 F.2d 432 (10th Cir. 1978) Cited 221 times
Finding a reasonable expectation that the state would again commit the plaintiff to a hospital when he "ha[d] been committed to a state hospital or mental health facility in Oklahoma on at least four distinct and separate occasions for a condition which seems to have evaded control or cure"
Madison v. Chalmette Refining, L.L.C
637 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2011) Cited 79 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding abuse of discretion where district court failed to analyze predominance with sufficient rigor
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,902 times 1234 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"
Section 1341 - Frauds and swindles
18 U.S.C. § 1341 Cited 13,397 times 104 Legal Analyses
Relating to mail fraud
Section 1692e - False or misleading representations
15 U.S.C. § 1692e Cited 6,921 times 108 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting false representation of the "character, amount, or legal status of a debt"
Section 1692f - Unfair practices
15 U.S.C. § 1692f Cited 3,397 times 35 Legal Analyses
Providing a non-exhaustive list of conduct that is unfair or unconscionable
Section 1692d - Harassment or abuse
15 U.S.C. § 1692d Cited 1,897 times 22 Legal Analyses
Limiting debt collectors’ ability to use threats of violence, publicize lists of consumers allegedly refusing to pay debts, cause a telephone to ring repeatedly or continuously, or engage someone in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously

Coleman et al v. Recontrust Company et al

19 Cited authorities

Holding in Rule 23 context that “[w]ithout some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims for relief will produce a common answer”

Holding that courts are "bound to enforce" Rule 23's certification requirements, even where it means decertifying a class after they had reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval

Holding that the party seeking certification “must show ‘under a strict burden of proof' that all four requirements are clearly met” (quoting Reed v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 1307, 1309 (10th Cir. 1988))

Holding that continuing jurisdiction of juvenile court and six month periodic review hearings constituted an ongoing state judicial proceeding

Holding that the lower court erred in requiring ascertainability of a Rule 23(b) class and explaining that "while the lack of identifiability is a factor that may defeat Rule 23(b) class certification, such is not the case with respect to class certification under Rule 23(b)"

Stating that an antitrust injury is an element of an antitrust plaintiff's prima facie case

Holding that district court "determine whether mooted named plaintiffs will remain adequate class representatives"

Finding a reasonable expectation that the state would again commit the plaintiff to a hospital when he "ha[d] been committed to a state hospital or mental health facility in Oklahoma on at least four distinct and separate occasions for a condition which seems to have evaded control or cure"

Finding abuse of discretion where district court failed to analyze predominance with sufficient rigor

Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"

Relating to mail fraud

Prohibiting false representation of the "character, amount, or legal status of a debt"

Providing a non-exhaustive list of conduct that is unfair or unconscionable

Limiting debt collectors’ ability to use threats of violence, publicize lists of consumers allegedly refusing to pay debts, cause a telephone to ring repeatedly or continuously, or engage someone in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously