Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. v. Compania De Navegacion, Interior, S. A.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an order entered without prejudice was “non-final in nature,” and stating that “‘without prejudice’ refers to the fact that the [order] is not on the merits”
• suggesting that “a unified policy, plan, or scheme of discrimination” can satisfy Rule 20’s commonality requirement
• suggesting that “a unified policy, plan, or scheme of discrimination” can satisfy Rule 20's commonality requirement
• suggesting that “a united policy, plan, or scheme of discrimination” can satisfy Rule 20’s commonality requirement
• noting that the “similarly situated” standard is considerably less stringent than Rule 23(b)(3) class action standards
• noting that the “similarly situated” standard is considerably less stringent than Rule 23(b)(3) class action standards

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).