Carol B. Oshana v. Coca-Cola Company, a Delaware Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• adding that disclaimers in the complaint block removal only if state law makes them effective as caps on damages, which Illinois law does not
• holding that the typicality re- quirement was not satisfied where the plaintiff’s pro- posed class “include[d] people who knew fountain Diet Coke contained saccharin and bought it anyway” when the plaintiff “claim[ed] she was deceived and injured”
• noting that overbroad classes that contain members without valid claims fail for lack of ascertainability
• noting that “class definitions must be definite enough that the class can be ascertained” (citation omitted)
• affirming denial of certification and noting that millions of people were improperly included in the proposed class
• affirming the denial of class certification when “[c]ountless members of [the] putative class could not show any damage” resulting from the defendant’s actions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).