Beck v. Maximus, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “unique defenses bear on both the typicality and adequacy of a class representative”
• explaining that a proposed class representative is not adequate “if the representative is subject to a unique defense that is likely to become a major focus of the litigation.”
• remanding because of difficulty discerning the district court’s analysis on typicality and adequacy
• finding presence of unique defense relevant to both the typicality and adequacy requirements
• noting the Supreme Court’s statement that typicality and adequacy of representation “‘tend to merge’ because both look to potential conflicts” (alteration omitted) (quoting Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 626 n.20 (1997))
• cautioning against certification when class representative may be subject to unique defense

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

113 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• In Re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation
  Third Circuit· 2009-01-16· cited 549×
• Marcus v. BMW of North America, LLC
  Third Circuit· 2012-08-07· cited 438×
• Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc.
  Third Circuit· 2011-12-20· cited 369×
• Neale v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC
  Third Circuit· 2015-07-22· cited 226×
• In re Schering Plough Corp. Erisa Litigation
  Third Circuit· 2009-12-21· cited 212×
• Glover v. Federal Deposit Insurance
  Third Circuit· 2012-09-05· cited 186×
• CE Design Ltd. v. King Architectural Metals, Inc.
  Seventh Circuit· 2011-03-18· cited 175×
• Danvers Motor Co., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
  Third Circuit· 2008-09-12· cited 99×
• Alex Reinig v. RBS Citizens NA
  Third Circuit· 2018-12-31· cited 92×
• In Re DVI, Inc. Securities Litigation
  Third Circuit· 2011-03-29· cited 86×
• Lycan v. Cleveland (Slip Opinion)
  Ohio Supreme Court· 2016-02-09· cited 51×
• Sheinberg v. Sorensen
  Third Circuit· 2010-05-28· cited 49×
• Altnor v. Preferred Freezer Services, Inc.
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2016-07-18· cited 49×
• Agostino v. Quest Diagnostics Inc.
  D. New Jersey· 2009-02-11· cited 47×
• In re Crocs, Inc. Securities Litigation
  D. Colorado· 2014-09-18· cited 41×
• Mary Boley v. Universal Health Services Inc
  Third Circuit· 2022-06-01· cited 32×
• Powers v. Lycoming Engines
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2007-09-25· cited 32×
• Boone v. City of Philadelphia
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2009-11-03· cited 31×
• Globe Surgical Supply v. GEICO Insurance
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 2008-12-30· cited 30×
• Thompson v. Jiffy Lube International, Inc.
  D. Kansas· 2008-07-16· cited 29×

Cites

17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor
  Supreme Court· 1997-06-25· cited 4,991×
• General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon
  Supreme Court· 1982-06-14· cited 4,068×
• Califano v. Yamasaki
  Supreme Court· 1979-06-20· cited 1,888×
• David Hanon v. Dataproducts Corporation Jack C. Davis
  Ninth Circuit· 1992-09-28· cited 950×
• In Re General Motors Corporation Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation. Jack French, Robert M. West, Charles E. Merritt, Gary Blades, Dawn and Tracey Best, Gary and Jackie Barnes, Betty Marteny, John and Mary Southands, Edmund Berning, Dale W. Plummer, Edmund and Anneta Casey, John a
  Third Circuit· 1995-04-17· cited 850×
• In Re: The Prudential Insurance Company Of America Sales Practices Litigation
  Third Circuit· 1998-07-23· cited 840×
• Baby Neal v. Casey
  Third Circuit· 1994-12-15· cited 562×
• Hoxworth v. Blinder, Robinson & Co.
  Third Circuit· 1992-12-02· cited 252×
• Richard Weiss, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Regal Collections Lancer Investments, Inc
  Third Circuit· 2004-09-29· cited 213×
• Gary Plastic Packaging Corp. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
  Second Circuit· 1990-05-14· cited 212×
• Elmo E. Koos, Sr. And Caroline M. Koos v. First National Bank of Peoria
  First Circuit· 1974-05-17· cited 159×
• Kort v. Diversified Collection Services, Inc.
  Seventh Circuit· 2005-01-10· cited 133×
• Johnson v. Riddle
  Tenth Circuit· 2006-04-04· cited 107×
• Hardy v. City Optical Inc.
  Seventh Circuit· 1994-11-07· cited 101×
• Zenith Laboratories, Inc., on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Carter-Wallace, Inc
  Third Circuit· 1976-02-10· cited 96×
• Unnamed case
  Third Circuit· 1997-08-07· cited 88×
• Cheryl L. Hyman v. Dick Tate and Harry Kirlin, D/b/a/ Tate & Kirlin Associates
  Seventh Circuit· 2004-04-01· cited 47×