Coburn v. Dixon

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the claims of individual government employees for premium pay were similar but not the “same” for the purposes of RCFC 20(a)
• holding that the claims of individual government employees for premium pay were similar but not the “same” for the purposes of RCFC 20(a)
• holding that plaintiffs, each of whom had entered into an agreement for a low interest loan from FmHA, had claims with many common legal or factual questions, but that was not enough to support permissive joinder under RCFC 20(a)
• recognizing a misjoinder under RCFC 20(a) in comparable circumstances, and severing each of the cases of thirty-seven plaintiffs who were not parties to the same transaction or occurrence
• affirming district court finding that joinder was improper where a loan made to the plaintiff by one defendant was unrelated to similar loans made to the plaintiff by other defendants
• “well-known canons of construction suggest that the term ‘same’ must be construed consistently [in this court’s rules], with the result that the term in the latter rule cannot mean ‘similar.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).