Deiter v. Microsoft Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a “representative party’s interest in prosecuting his own case must simultaneously tend to advance the interests of the absent class members” to establish typicality
• noting the plaintiffs’ claims and the class members’ claims need not “be perfectly identical or perfectly aligned”
• discussing, in class action antitrust claim context, the requirement that the plaintiffs establish proof of damages
• explaining typicality: “a class representative must be part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members.”
• noting the plaintiffs’ claims and the class members’ claims need not “be perfectly identical or perfectly aligned”
• “The essence of the typicality requirement is captured by the notion that ‘as goes the claim of the named plaintiff, so go the claims of the class.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).