§Why CasetextPricing

Scardina v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. et al

MEMORANDUM

40 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts

    472 U.S. 797 (1985)   Cited 1,785 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. Arreola v. Godinez

    546 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2008)   Cited 662 times
    Holding that the need for individual damages determination did not require denial of the motion for class certification

  3. Keele v. Wexler

    149 F.3d 589 (7th Cir. 1998)   Cited 664 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiff had Article III standing where defendant tried to collect an illegal collection fee, even if plaintiff did not pay the fee

  4. Rosario v. Livaditis

    963 F.2d 1013 (7th Cir. 1992)   Cited 734 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

  5. Carnegie v. Household Int'l

    376 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2004)   Cited 258 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant who urges a court to certify a class for settlement, and prevails, may later contest certification for litigation if the settlement fails, but only as to manageability

  6. Ross v. Bank of America

    524 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2008)   Cited 199 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged antitrust injuries in the form of reductions in "consumer choice" and the "quality of services offered"

  7. Pruitt v. City of Chicago, Illinois

    472 F.3d 925 (7th Cir. 2006)   Cited 167 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff could not seek redress for 20 years of harassment

  8. Evans v. U.S. Pipe Foundry Co.

    696 F.2d 925 (11th Cir. 1983)   Cited 289 times
    Explaining that the class representative is not required to establish the exact number in the proposed class

  9. Esplin v. Hirschi

    402 F.2d 94 (10th Cir. 1969)   Cited 399 times
    In Esplin v. Hirschi, 402 F.2d 94 (10th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 928, 89 S.Ct. 1194, 22 L.Ed.2d 459, this court discussed the basic rules concerning class actions allowable under the newly amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and in particular class actions allowable under 23(b)(3).

  10. Marcial v. Coronet Ins. Co.

    880 F.2d 954 (7th Cir. 1989)   Cited 209 times
    Holding that issues specific to each plaintiff predominated because the major issue in contention — whether the insurance company had fraudulently informed the plaintiffs that they could only recover under an insurance policy if they submitted to a polygraph test — depended upon evidence of the individual oral communications between the defendant and each plaintiff

  11. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 34,896 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"

  12. Section 227 - Restrictions on use of telephone equipment

    47 U.S.C. § 227   Cited 5,659 times   733 Legal Analyses
    Granting exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts over actions brought by state attorney generals

  13. Section 1658 - Time limitations on the commencement of civil actions arising under Acts of Congress

    28 U.S.C. § 1658   Cited 2,373 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the state-law tort period controls § 1983 actions