40 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts

    472 U.S. 797 (1985)   Cited 1,781 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “the Due Process Clause of course requires that the named plaintiff at all times adequately represent the interests of the absent class members”
  2. Rosario v. Livaditis

    963 F.2d 1013 (7th Cir. 1992)   Cited 733 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff's claim is typical if it arises from the same event or practice giving rise to the claims of other class members and is based on the same legal theory as the class members
  3. Blackie v. Barrack

    524 F.2d 891 (9th Cir. 1975)   Cited 1,134 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the need to determine individualized damages does not defeat class certification
  4. De La Fuente v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc.

    713 F.2d 225 (7th Cir. 1983)   Cited 618 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that typicality may be satisfied even if there are factual distinctions between claims of named plaintiffs and other class members
  5. Gene and Gene v. Biopay

    541 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2008)   Cited 204 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the determinative question of whether consent can be established via class-wide proof must . . . be answered in the negative" because the plaintiff "failed to advance a viable theory of generalized proof to identify those persons, if any, to whom BioPay may be liable under the TCPA."
  6. Holtzman v. Turza

    728 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2013)   Cited 135 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fax that "devotes about 75% of the space to mundane advice and the remainder to [Defendant's] name, address, logo, and specialties" was an advertisement
  7. Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc.

    788 F.3d 218 (6th Cir. 2015)   Cited 83 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that two faxes listing medications available in the health plans of the plaintiff chiropractor's patients were not advertisements
  8. Cypress v. Newport News Gen. Nonsectarian

    375 F.2d 648 (4th Cir. 1967)   Cited 285 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding 18 people as sufficient to meet the numerosity requirement
  9. Riordan v. Smith Barney

    113 F.R.D. 60 (N.D. Ill. 1986)   Cited 161 times
    Holding that a class of twenty-nine persons satisfied the numerosity requirement
  10. Swanson v. American Consumer Industries, Inc.

    415 F.2d 1326 (7th Cir. 1969)   Cited 257 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appraisal is not exclusive remedy in 10b-5 action, in part because recission would be unavailable
  11. Rule 4 - Summons

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 4   Cited 68,376 times   121 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time
  12. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 34,789 times   1232 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"
  13. Section 227 - Restrictions on use of telephone equipment

    47 U.S.C. § 227   Cited 5,637 times   733 Legal Analyses
    Granting exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts over actions brought by state attorney generals