40 Cited authorities

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts
472 U.S. 797 (1985) Cited 1,796 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”
Rosario v. Livaditis
963 F.2d 1013 (7th Cir. 1992) Cited 737 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
Blackie v. Barrack
524 F.2d 891 (9th Cir. 1975) Cited 1,142 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that the need to determine individualized damages does not defeat class certification
De La Fuente v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc.
713 F.2d 225 (7th Cir. 1983) Cited 620 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
Gene and Gene v. Biopay
541 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2008) Cited 206 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."
Holtzman v. Turza
728 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2013) Cited 136 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
Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc.
788 F.3d 218 (6th Cir. 2015) Cited 84 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that two faxes listing medications available in the health plans of the plaintiff chiropractor's patients were not advertisements
Cypress v. Newport News Gen. Nonsectarian
375 F.2d 648 (4th Cir. 1967) Cited 289 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding 18 people as sufficient to meet the numerosity requirement
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
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
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 70,485 times 126 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
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 35,330 times 1237 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 227 - Restrictions on use of telephone equipment
47 U.S.C. § 227 Cited 5,714 times 738 Legal Analyses
Granting exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts over actions brought by state attorney generals

Podiatry In Motion, Inc. v. CoverMyMeds, LLC et al

40 Cited authorities

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”

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

Holding that the need to determine individualized damages does not defeat class certification

Holding that typicality may be satisfied even if there are factual distinctions between claims of named plaintiffs and other class members

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."

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

Holding that two faxes listing medications available in the health plans of the plaintiff chiropractor's patients were not advertisements

Holding 18 people as sufficient to meet the numerosity requirement

Holding that a class of twenty-nine persons satisfied the numerosity requirement

Holding that appraisal is not exclusive remedy in 10b-5 action, in part because recission would be unavailable

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

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"

Granting exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts over actions brought by state attorney generals