Morgan v. Coats

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that mere factual differences and differing individual damage amounts do not preclude satisfaction of rule 1.220(a)'s commonality requirement
• holding plaintiff met the minimal requirement of showing that he possessed the same interest and had suffered the same type of injury as the rest of the class members. The fact that the extent of . . . injury (i.e., damages
• finding typicality was satisfied where class representative “had suffered the same type of injury” even though “the extent of his injury (i.e., damages) might vary from that of the other class members”
• “While it is true that there will be some factual variations among the class members’ claims . . . such issues go to the determination of damages rather than to liability. And individualized damages inquiries do not preclude class certification.”
• \`The . . . primary concern in considering the . . . commonality of claims should be whether the representative's claim arises from the same practice or course of conduct that gave rise to the remaining claims and whether the claims are based on the same legal theory.'\ (emphasis added
• “[I]n-dividualized damages inquiries do not preclude class certification.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).