D. Colorado· 10/10/1996
In re Intelcom Group, Inc. Securities Litigation
Citations
- 169 F.R.D. 142
- 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15192
- 1996 WL 588042
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding that factual differences in proposed class members’ claims should not result in a denial of class certification where common questions of law exist
- stating that “factual differences in the claims of the individual putative class members should not result in a denial of class certification where common questions of law exist”
- finding that the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a) is satisfied where there were unspecified “thousands” of class members, and noting that the numerosity requirement generally is assumed to be met in suits involving nationally traded securities
- “That the claims of individual putative class members may differ factually should not preclude certification under Rule 23(b)(2) of a claim seeking the application of a common policy.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Daniel
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
21 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- In Re Enron Corp. SecuritiesS.D. Texas· 2006-06-05· cited 55×
- Schwartz v. Celestial Seasonings, Inc.D. Colorado· 1998-03-31· cited 38×
- Anderson Living Trust v. WPX Energy Production, LLCD. New Mexico· 2015-03-19· cited 28×
- Bhasker v. Kemper Cas. Ins. Co.D. New Mexico· 2019-02-07· cited 27×
- Neiberger v. HawkinsD. Colorado· 2002-05-22· cited 27×
- In re Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. Securities LitigationD. New Mexico· 2012-11-26· cited 26×
- Bustillos v. Board of County CommissionersD. New Mexico· 2016-09-16· cited 26×
- Bovee v. Coopers & LybrandS.D. Ohio· 2003-07-30· cited 19×
- Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co.S.D. Ohio· 2009-05-21· cited 19×
- In re Ribozyme Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities LitigationD. Colorado· 2001-07-20· cited 16×
- Queen Uno Ltd. Partnership v. Coeur D'Alene Mines Corp.D. Colorado· 1998-12-15· cited 14×
- Abraham v. WPX Production Productions, LLCD. New Mexico· 2016-08-16· cited 13×
- Lane v. PageD. New Mexico· 2011-01-10· cited 10×
- City Partnership Co. v. Jones Intercable, Inc.D. Colorado· 2002-09-30· cited 9×
- Daye v. Community Financial Service Centers, LLCD. New Mexico· 2016-02-09· cited 8×
- In Re Rhythms Securities LitigationD. Colorado· 2004-01-29· cited 7×
- Lowery v. City of AlbuquerqueD. New Mexico· 2011-04-13· cited 7×
- Zuniga v. Bernalillo CountyD. New Mexico· 2016-10-25· cited 5×
- Vaszlavik v. Storage Technology Corp.D. Colorado· 1998-11-09· cited 4×
- Abraham v. WPX Energy Production, LLCD. New Mexico· 2017-09-30· cited 3×
Cites
40 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. FalconSupreme Court· 1982-06-14· cited 4,068×
- Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinSupreme Court· 1974-05-28· cited 3,301×
- Basic Inc. v. LevinsonSupreme Court· 1988-03-07· cited 3,007×
- Blackie v. BarrackNinth Circuit· 1975-09-25· cited 871×
- Eisenberg v. GagnonThird Circuit· 1985-06-28· cited 452×
- Esplin v. HirschiTenth Circuit· 1968-09-30· cited 393×
- Hankerson v. North CarolinaSupreme Court· 1976-10-04· cited 371×
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,265 Fred Zeidman and Steven Youngelson v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc.Fifth Circuit· 1981-07-27· cited 327×
- Bernard v. Beneficial Finance Co.Supreme Court· 1969-03-24· cited 325×
- Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc.Second Circuit· 1982-02-19· cited 258×
- Mabel Penn v. San Juan Hospital, Inc.Tenth Circuit· 1975-12-31· cited 241×
- Peil v. SpeiserThird Circuit· 1986-11-28· cited 185×
- Zobrist v. Coal-X, Inc.Tenth Circuit· 1983-04-11· cited 141×
- In re LTV Securities LitigationN.D. Texas· 1980-07-31· cited 113×
- Vitiello v. CicconiD. New Jersey· 1984-09-20· cited 94×
- Piel v. National Semiconductor Corp.E.D. Pennsylvania· 1980-03-21· cited 76×
- In Re Seagate Technology II Securities LitigationN.D. California· 1994-03-02· cited 63×
- Joseph v. General Motors Corp.D. Colorado· 1986-03-14· cited 63×
- Grad v. Memorex Corp.N.D. California· 1973-06-19· cited 52×
- In re Kirschner Medical Corp. Securities LitigationD. Maryland· 1991-07-26· cited 50×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.