D. Connecticut· 1/8/2001
Macarz v. Transworld Systems, Inc.
Citations
- 201 F.R.D. 54
- 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7675
- 2001 WL 682546
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that a defendant’s inability to weed out a small number of non-class members from notice should not be a limitation to proper notice
- agreeing with the plaintiff that “because liability has already been determined, defendant bears the cost of notice to the class”
- ordering the defendant to “pay for the cost of notice,” noting that “liability has already been determined” and that the defendant did not “contest that it bears the cost of notice”
- requiring notice to each person on list in defendant’s possession where list was approximately 25 percent overinclusive but “approximately three-quarters of the notices sent to the names on the proposed list would result in notice to all class members”
- requiring notice to each 25 person on list in defendant's possession where list was approximately 25 percent 26 overinclusive but “approximately three-quarters of the notices sent to the names on the 27 1 proposed list would result in notice to all class members”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Arterton
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
14 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Hunt v. Imperial Merchant Services, Inc.Ninth Circuit· 2009-03-31· cited 87×
- Dehoyos v. Allstate Corp.W.D. Texas· 2007-02-21· cited 47×
- Mendez v. Radec Corp.W.D. New York· 2009-08-20· cited 23×
- Hypertouch, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2005-06-06· cited 21×
- In re Risk Management Alternatives, Inc.S.D. New York· 2002-06-14· cited 19×
- Saltzman v. Pella Corp.N.D. Illinois· 2009-06-04· cited 17×
- Anne Arundel County v. Cambridge CommonsCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2005-12-22· cited 8×
- Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc.C.D. California· 2006-06-07· cited 8×
- St. James Community Hospital, Inc. v. District Court of the Eighth Judicial DistrictMontana Supreme Court· 2003-09-25· cited 7×
- Rimmer v. Citifinancial, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals· 2013-12-26· cited 5×
- Larsen v. JBC Legal Group, P.C.E.D. New York· 2006-04-20· cited 4×
- Loef v. First American Title InsuranceD. Maine· 2012-02-28· cited 2×
- ST. JAMES COMMUNITY HOSP. v. District Ct.Montana Supreme Court· 2003-09-25
- Hunt v. Imperial MerchantNinth Circuit· 2009-03-31
Cites
15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court· 1950-06-05· cited 10,395×
- Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinSupreme Court· 1974-05-28· cited 3,301×
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. SandersSupreme Court· 1978-06-19· cited 2,321×
- In Re Nissan Motor Corporation Antitrust LitigationFifth Circuit· 1977-05-25· cited 203×
- Schisler v. HecklerSecond Circuit· 1986-04-02· cited 82×
- Postow v. Oba Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nD.C. Circuit· 1980-06-18· cited 46×
- Warren R. Erhardt v. Prudential Group, Inc. And Prudential Ventures Corporation, Nathan M. ShippeeSecond Circuit· 1980-09-11· cited 39×
- In re Domestic Air Transportation Antitrust LitigationN.D. Georgia· 1992-01-10· cited 30×
- Carlough v. Amchem Products, Inc.E.D. Pennsylvania· 1993-10-27· cited 24×
- Hartman v. WickDistrict of Columbia· 1988-02-16· cited 18×
- Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus GrowersD. Arizona· 1986-07-11· cited 18×
- Meadows v. Ford Motor Co.W.D. Kentucky· 1973-01-16· cited 14×
- McCarthy v. Paine Webber Group, Inc.D. Connecticut· 1995-12-27· cited 13×
- Catlett v. Missouri Highway & Transportation CommissionW.D. Missouri· 1984-04-26· cited 10×
- MacArz v. Transworld Systems, Inc.D. Connecticut· 1998-09-21· cited 7×
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.