Louisville Railway Co. v. Bryant

How courts have described this case

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

• arguing that, if a policy was involved in a STOLI scheme, “illustrations likely played no role in the prior owner’s purchase and sale decisions”
• finding that the record “does not indicate a significant likelihood that individualized factual inquiries into whether individual plaintiffs were working” during certain periods will predominate
• “Here, the plaintiffs’ theory of damages is consistent with their theory of liability, and computing damages is likely to be a mere matter of arithmetic.”
• “The evidence in this case supports the existence of a RiverBay-wide payroll policy that was the reason for the Subclass members’ alleged injuries under the NYLL, and the commonality requirement is therefore satisfied for Subclass 1”
• “To the extent that the defendants emphasize the individualized inquiries that may be necessary to establish liability and damages, any such inquiries do not defeat a finding that the named plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the proposed Subclass.”
• “To the extent that the defendants emphasize the individualized inquiries that may be necessary to establish liability and damages, any such inquiries do not defeat a finding that the named plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the proposed Subclass”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).