CE Design Ltd. v. King Architectural Metals, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that a combination of actions might have added up to plaintiff’s express invitation or permission to receive the fax advertisement
• holding that an 1 argument based on the credibility of a class representative does not undermine adequacy 2 unless “a fact finder might reasonably focus on plaintiff’s credibility, to the detriment of 3 the absent class members’ claims”
• noting that the typicality and adequacy prerequisites under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, i.e., WIS. STAT. § 803.03’s federal analog, often merge
• demonstrating that the relevant consideration is whether Blue Book “customers” expect to receive advertisements
• demonstrating that the relevant consideration is whether Blue Book \customers\ expect to receive advertisements
• demonstrating that the relevant consideration is whether Blue Book \customers\ expect to receive advertisements

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).