18 Cited authorities

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
564 U.S. 338 (2011) Cited 6,637 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”
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of America
148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) Cited 3,793 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that parties are free to waive their right to a jury trial
Robidoux v. Celani
987 F.2d 931 (2d Cir. 1993) Cited 874 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that recipients of public assistance challenging delays by the Vermont Department of Social Welfare could proceed under the "inherently transitory" exception in part because "the Department will almost always be able to process a delayed application before a plaintiff can obtain relief through litigation"
Berger v. Compaq Comput. Corp.
257 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 2001) Cited 270 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that district court erred by shifting burden to defendants to show that class representatives were inadequate
Lundy v. Masson
260 S.W.3d 482 (Tex. App. 2008) Cited 165 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that appellate court "will reform the trial court's judgment to effect such an election" that gives plaintiff "the greater remedy" when multiple causes of action support damages award and jury does not specify under which cause of action it awarded damages
M.D. ex rel. Stukenberg v. Perry
675 F.3d 832 (5th Cir. 2012) Cited 129 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that district court erred in finding commonality, where court's discussion “contained no reference to any of the three causes of action advanced on behalf of the proposed class, nor did the district court ‘look beyond the pleadings to understand the claims, defenses, relevant facts, and applicable substantive law in order to make a meaningful determination” about commonality
State of Ala. v. Blue Bird Body Co., Inc.
573 F.2d 309 (5th Cir. 1978) Cited 288 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that predominance was not met where the impact of alleged antitrust conduct by the defendant was an issue that must be proved with certainty and was unique to each particular plaintiff
Feder v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.
429 F.3d 125 (5th Cir. 2005) Cited 125 times
Holding that “the purchase of a company's stock after disclosure of alleged fraud [does not] necessarily present a unique defense against that purchaser such that Rule 23 typicality is categorically precluded”
Spagnola v. Chubb Corp.
264 F.R.D. 76 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) Cited 82 times
Holding that to maintain breach of contract claim under New York law, where element of cause of action is existence of a contract, plaintiffs needed to allege authority to contract
In re Intern. Profit Associates
286 S.W.3d 921 (Tex. 2009) Cited 51 times
Holding that party who signs document is presumed to know its contents

Turnbow et al v. Life Partners Inc et al

18 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 parties are free to waive their right to a jury trial

Holding that district court erred by shifting burden to defendants to show that class representatives were inadequate

Holding that appellate court "will reform the trial court's judgment to effect such an election" that gives plaintiff "the greater remedy" when multiple causes of action support damages award and jury does not specify under which cause of action it awarded damages

Holding that predominance was not met where the impact of alleged antitrust conduct by the defendant was an issue that must be proved with certainty and was unique to each particular plaintiff

Holding that “the purchase of a company's stock after disclosure of alleged fraud [does not] necessarily present a unique defense against that purchaser such that Rule 23 typicality is categorically precluded”

Holding that to maintain breach of contract claim under New York law, where element of cause of action is existence of a contract, plaintiffs needed to allege authority to contract

Holding that party who signs document is presumed to know its contents