Hinman v. M and M Rental Center, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that individualized questions did not preclude predominance because fax broadcasts were sent en masse on a singular “leads” list obtained from a single source
• “The fax broadcasts at issue were sent en masse to recipients identified on a singular ‘leads’ list obtained from a singular source.”
• in “fax blast” case, hypothetical possibility that some recipients might have consented to the transmissions at issue was insufficient to prevent class certification
• element of commonality -14- No. 1-13-1543 was met in TCPA case because defendant “engage[d] in a standardized course of conduct vis-a- vis the class members”
• element of commonality was met in TCPA case because defendant “engage[d] in a standardized course of conduct vis-a-vis the class members”
• in “fax blast” case, hypothetical possibility that some recipients might have consented to the transmissions at issue was insufficient to prevent class certification

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).