In re Standard Const. Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “the mere existence of individualized factual questions with respect to the class representative’s claim will not bar class certification”
• holding that “the mere existence of individualized factual questions with respect to the class representative’s claim will not bar class certification”
• holding that “the mere existence of individualized factual questions with respect to the class representative’s claim will not bar class certification”
• declining to certify a putative class of employees of a New Jersey-based employer where not all class members worked in New Jersey
• “The adequacy inquiry under Rule 23(a)(4) serves to uncover conflicts of interest between named parties and the class they seek to represent.”
• “The adequacy inquiry under Rule 23(a)(4) serves to uncover conflicts of interest between named parties and the class they seek to represent.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).