Eighth Circuit· 2/13/2017
Robert McKeage v. TMBC, LLC
Citations
- 847 F.3d 992
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 plaintiff’s proposed class was ascertainable, despite the need to examine each individual class member’s contract for a particular choice-of-law provision
- holding that manual review does not preclude ascertainability
- finding claims involving interpretation of form contracts often present a “classic case” for class treatment
- emphasizing \a distinction between the amount a losing party may be required to pay\ under fee-shifting provision in settlement \and the amount a class member should equitably be required to pay\ under common fund doctrine
- affirming certification though it required “an intensive file-by-file review process” to determine class members
- emphasizing “a distinction between the amount a losing party may be required to pay” under fee-shifting provision in settlement “and the amount a class member should equitably be required to pay” under common fund doctrine
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Wollman, Bright, Kelly
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
6 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Richard Tredinnick v. Jackson National LifeFifth Circuit· 2020-03-25· cited 51×
- Custom Hair Designs by Sandy v. Central Payment Co.Eighth Circuit· 2020-12-30· cited 23×
- Robert McKeage v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLCEighth Circuit· 2019-12-04· cited 3×
- Lucas Subway MidMo, Inc. v. Mandatory Poster Agency, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals· 2017-04-25· cited 2×
- Victor B. Skaar v. Robert L. WilkieVeterans Claims· 2019-12-06
- Backer Law Firm v. Costco Wholesale Corp.W.D. Missouri· 2017-04-27
Cites
36 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Gisbrecht v. BarnhartSupreme Court· 2002-05-28· cited 4,551×
- Boeing Co. v. Van GemertSupreme Court· 1980-02-19· cited 897×
- Venegas v. MitchellSupreme Court· 1990-04-18· cited 309×
- Twin City Pipe Line Co. v. Harding Glass Co.Supreme Court· 1931-05-18· cited 205×
- In re Fine Paper Antitrust LitigationThird Circuit· 1984-12-13· cited 196×
- Skelton v. General Motors Corp.Seventh Circuit· 1988-10-14· cited 133×
- Unnamed caseEighth Circuit· 2005-10-12· cited 114×
- Robert J. Ihrke and Mary E. Ihrke v. Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota CorporationEighth Circuit· 1972-05-25· cited 108×
- International Travel Arrangers, Inc. v. Western Airlines, Inc.Eighth Circuit· 1980-06-10· cited 107×
- Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Brookside Theatre Corp.Eighth Circuit· 1952-05-05· cited 105×
- Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v. Medtox Scientific, Inc.Eighth Circuit· 2016-05-03· cited 82×
- Kleiner v. First National Bank of AtlantaN.D. Georgia· 1983-04-15· cited 63×
- Haggart v. United StatesFederal Circuit· 2016-01-08· cited 58×
- Arnold Chapman & Paldo Sign & Display Co. v. Wagener Equities, Inc.Seventh Circuit· 2014-03-31· cited 54×
- Hargis v. JLB Corp.Supreme Court of Missouri· 2011-12-20· cited 48×
- Schwan's Sales Enterprises, Inc. v. Sig Pack, Inc., Doboy DivisionEighth Circuit· 2007-02-09· cited 47×
- Hulse v. CrigerSupreme Court of Missouri· 1952-04-14· cited 47×
- Rose Confections, Inc. v. Ambrosia Chocolate Company, a Division of W.R. Grace and Co.Eighth Circuit· 1987-05-12· cited 44×
- Rodney Green Charlan Green v. Dillard's, Inc., National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Kansas City Branch, Amicus on Behalf OfEighth Circuit· 2007-04-05· cited 42×
- Steinberg v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceE.D. New York· 2004-09-04· cited 40×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.