Arreola v. Godinez

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that “the need for individual damages determinations does not, in and of itself, require denial of [a] motion for certification” under Rule 23(b)(3)
• recognizing that “the need for individual damages determinations does not, in and of itself, require denial of [a] motion for certification” under rule 23(b)(3)
• holding that a “no crutches” policy that forces inmates to walk on their broken ankles is deliberate indifference
• recognizing that “the need for individual damages determinations does not, in and of itself, require denial of [a] motion for certification” under Rule 23(b)(3)
• holding that the plaintiff “did have standing to pursue this lawsuit,” but explaining that “whether he may serve as an adequate class representative” is a “separate question[]”
• stating that district courts have \broad discretion\ to deny leave to amend where there is \repeated failure to cure deficiencies\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).