Newsome v. Williams

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the determination of compensation by individualized proof did not preclude common issues from predominating
• finding commonality where the “issue is whether the NITU 7 ... effected a taking of the class members’ property”
• finding, in a rails-to-trails case, that where most of the proposed class holds a relatively small portion of the land subject to the alleged taking, “the costs of litigating a takings claim can easily exceed the just compensation due”
• “The commonality criterion is generally evaluated based upon a three -part test cobbled together from various parts of RCFC 23.”
• class of 23 members satisfied the numerosity requirement because the cost of litigating the claims individually would have been prohibitive
• “[T]his court’s jurisdiction ... primarily concerns claims for liquidated or unliquidated damages against the United States, with equitable relief allowed only in expressly specified instances.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).