Friend v. Burnham & Morrill Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the typicality and commonality requirements of Fed. R. Civ. E 23 “ensure that only those plaintiffs or defendants who can advance the same factual and legal arguments may be grouped together as a class”
• explaining that a plain- tiff’s awareness of their right to sue, willingness to take on the burden of litigation, and ability to find an attorney are rele- vant to superiority analysis
• explaining that a plain- tiff’s awareness of their right to sue, willingness to take on the burden of litigation, and ability to find an attorney are rele- vant to superiority analysis
• noting that the typicality and commonality requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 “ensure that only those plaintiffs or defendants who can advance the same factual and legal arguments may be grouped together as a class”
• Rejecting same argument, because “if a debt collector is sued in one state, but continues to violate the statute in another, it ought to be possible to challenge such continuing violations.”
• “ ‘A class action solves this problem by aggregating the relatively paltry potential recoveries into something worth someone’s (usually an attorney’s) labor.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).