M.D. Ex Rel. Stukenberg v. Perry

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “[t]he district court clearly rejected” the defendant’s individualization argument but had not “sufficiently analyzed” it
• noting that commonality is not shown when plaintiffs allege an amorphous claim of undefined and unspecified systemic misconduct
• noting that the deliberate indifference standard mandates “an individualized inquiry regarding the harm or risk of harm experienced by each class member”
• noting that cases challenging system-wide practices are appropriate for (b)(2) certification
• noting that cases challenging system-wide practices are appropriate for (b)(2) certification
• noting that the district court needed to explain why it had rejected the defendant’s argument that “resolution of each of the class member’s . . . claims require[d] individual analysis” that could have prevented the litigation from “generat[ing] common answers”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).