McCrary v. Miner

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that court has discretion, in cases where individualized claims are made, to \carve out subclasses or to try damages issues separately\
• noting that court has discretion, in cases where individualized claims are made, to “carve out subclasses or to try damages issues separately”
• the court may make a commonsense judgment in favor of nu-merosity based on the number of outstanding shares
• typicality requirement satisfied because named plaintiffs’ claims “arise from the same series of events and are based on the same legal theories as the claims of all class members”
• named plaintiffs' claims \typical of the claims of the class because the complaint alleges that Defendants engaged in a scheme or common course of conduct designed to deceive the investing public\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).