Neale v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that questions as to the injuries suffered by unnamed class members may be relevant to the question of predominance and that “a properly formulated Rule 23 class should not raise standing issues”
• explaining that differences between injuries suffered by class members can “affect . . . predominance analyses”
• explaining that it is not clear whether the Eighth Circuit’s standing analysis rests on Article III or Rule 23
• explaining that Article III standing requires an injury-in-fact, sufficient causal connection between the injury and conduct complained of, and a likelihood the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision
• noting that “a properly formulated Rule 23 class should not raise standing issues
• recognizing “that individual damages calculations do not preclude class certification under Rule 23(b)(3)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).