Olds v. Brown Shoe Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that courts may draw a “reasonable inference as to the size of the facts given the facts before 15 it”
• finding commonality based, in part, on “practices relating to the funding and provision of community-based services”
• finding commonality based, in part, on “practices relating to the funding and provision of community-based services”
• Rule 23(b)(2) satisfied where plaintiffs “submitted evidence to support their allegation that a systemic deficiency in the State’s community-based mental health services system affects the class”
• common questions “can be answered either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ for the entire class”—they are “central questions whose answers will not vary by individual class members” (internal quotations omitted)
• “common questions susceptible to common answers” included “whether there is a systemic deficiency in the availability of community-based services, and whether that deficiency follows from the State’s policies and practices”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).