Harris v. Kernan

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that had defendant “presented evidence that could rebut the Plaintiffs’ common inference of causation on an individualized basis, we and the district court might have concluded that individual issues would predominate at trial” (quotations and alterations omitted)
• finding that a damages model allowing damages to be “easily calculable using a simple for- mula” supports a finding of predominance
• explaining that individual factual circumstances did not defeat typicality because the legal theory was the same regardless of differ- ences among plaintiffs
• explaining that individual factual circumstances did not defeat typicality because the legal theory was the same regardless of differences among plain- tiffs
• concluding the typicality requirement is met when the class members, including class representatives, rely on the same legal theory
• explaining that a claim for unjust enrichment requires the plaintiff to plead the same three elements (citing Lewis v. Lewis, 189 P.3d 1134, 1141 (Colo. 2008))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).