Cannata v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)

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 issue is of “great importance” but declining to address it because the petitioner abandoned it
• holding that resolving the persuasiveness of evidence or testimony that has been admitted “is the near exclusive province of the jury”
• holding that class certification was appropriate in part because a defendant could have challenged the plaintiff’s expert under Daubert, but did not
• holding that representative sampling was a permissible method to prove whether time spent donning and doffing gear resulted in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
• holding that the existence of “important matters . . . such as . . . affirmative defenses peculiar to some individual class members” does not necessarily preclude a finding of predominance
• explaining that the plaintiffs in Wal-Mart \did not provide significant proof of a common policy of discrimination to which each employee was subject\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).