Blaylock v. Incorporated Town of Muskogee
Citations
- 117 F. 125
- 54 C.C.A. 639
- 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4416
Syllabus
<p>L Municipal Corporations—Extent of Power and Liabilities Question of Local Law.</p> <p>The extent of the powers and liabilities of municipal corporations under the statutes of a state is generally a question of local law, upon which the decisions of the courts of the state are authoritative in the-national courts.</p> <p>2. Statute—Adoption—Prior Construction.</p> <p>The enactment or adoption of a statute, which has been elsewhere In force, is presumed to be the adoption of the construction which had been previously given to that statute by the judicial tribunals whose duty it was to interpret it.</p> <p>8. Municipalities in Indian Territory—Defects in Streets or Sidewalks-—Liability.</p> <p>On May 2, 1890, congress made chapter 29 of Mansfield’s Digest of the Laws of Arkansas, which governs municipal corporations, a part of the laws of the Indian Territory (chapter 15, Ind. T. Ann. St. 1899). Prior to that time the supreme court of Arkansas had twice held that municipalities subject to that chapter were exempt from liability to individuals for negligence in the construction, maintenance, or repair of their streets, ffeld, the legal presumption is that, when congress adopted the statute of Arkansas as the law of the Indian Territory, it also adopted the construction of this statute which the supreme court of that state had previously put upon it, and a municipality in the Indian Territory governed by this chapter 29 (chapter 15) is not liable to individuals for defects in its sidewalks or streets, notwithstanding the fact that the-more reasonable rule, which is sustained by the greater weight of authority, is otherwise.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- certifying a Rule 23(b)(3) class and noting that “to the extent [a defendant] has individualized defenses, it is free to try those defenses against individual claimants” and that “therefore Dukes does not bar certification”
- typicality met where plaintiffs and the proposed class had the same claims arising out of the defendant’s marketing campaign for men’s vitamins
- individualized defenses may be adjudicated separately from common, predominant issues, and do not preclude certification
- “But at a minimum, everyone who purchased the Men’s Vitamins would have been exposed to the prostate claim that appeared on every package----That is the predominant issue, not whether or not consumers also saw television or print advertisements.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Sanborn
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.