State Ex Rel. Coca-Cola Co. v. Nixon

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that, for purposes of its analysis, the plaintiff's unjust enrichment and MMPA claims “need not be distinguished”
• finding that lower court abused discretion in certifying class because “proposed class could include millions who were not injured and thus have no grievance under section 407.025”
• finding that lower court abused discretion in certifying class because “proposed class could include millions who were not injured and thus have no grievance under section 407.025”
• stating that the interlocutory appeal rules “[do] not impinge upon or foreclose any other statutorily created avenues of review, such as an appeal as a matter of right of a final judgment created by section 512.020(5).”
• noting a class definition may be modified when, in its original form, it includes an overly large number of uninjured class members
• “This Court has repeatedly held that prohibition may be appropriate to prevent unnecessary, inconvenient, and expensive litigation.” (citation modified)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).