Mims v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that there were “no legal impediments to the certification of a class” on the three state-law claims presented here
• rejecting the argument that the equitable nature of the plaintiffs’ state-law claims necessitated an “individualized factual inquiry” on the ground that “[gjranting the R-8 to eligible borrower[s] is mandatory”
• stating “[c]lass certification is not precluded simply because a class may include persons who have not been injured by the defendant's conduct,” citing Kohen v. Pac. Inv. Mgmt. Co., LLC, 571 F.3d 672, 677 (7th Cir. 2009) in its Rule 23 analysis
• “The district court was not required to determine that every class member had suffered damages as a prerequisite to class certification.”
• \Class certification is not precluded simply because a class may include persons who have not been injured by defendant’s conduct.\ (citation omitted)
• “Class certification is not precluded simply because a class may include persons who have not been injured by the defendant’s conduct.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).