Carroll v. Allstate Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “an illegal policy might provide the glue necessary to litigate otherwise highly individualized claims as a class” (internal quotations omitted)
• noting that motion labeled as one under Rule 60(b) in fact was request for relief from interlocutory decision given that final judgment had not yet been entered
• clarifying that Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. __, __; 135 S.Ct. 2466 (2015) did not change the applicability of the Eighth Amendment standard to pre-trial detainee deliberate indifference claims
• noting that motion labeled as one under Rule 60(b) in fact was request for relief from interlocutory decision given that No. 16‐1638 Page 4 final judgment had not yet been entered
• affirming district court’s decision to decertify a Rule 23(b)(2) where there was no “proof of a systemic practice which could tie all the claims together”
• finding common question insufficient to satisfy Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement where it did “not advance materially any individual’s claim”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).