InPhyNet Contracting Services, Inc. v. Soria

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[w]hile the predominance requirement parallels the commonality requirement under rule 1.220(a), the predominance requirement in subdivision (b)(3) is more stringent because common questions must pervade”
• holding common issues did not predominate over individual issues in an action against a staffing agency for failure to pay bonuses, where no written statement of obligation existed
• holding “[w]e agree that the court did not conduct a ‘rigorous analysis’ of the predominance factor” where it “made no analysis, other than” making one conclusory statement and “did not analyze any of the other issues involved in that determination”
• explaining, in class action certification, appellate court gives trial court’s factual determinations less deference where issues of fact were decided without an evidentiary hearing
• reversing trial court’s certification of a class, despite the existence of common issues of fact on some claims, because individual issues in other claims predominated

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).