United States v. 113.81 Acres of Land

How courts have described this case

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

• finding the named plaintiffs satisfied the typicality requirement because they “held the same investment as did all other members of the . . . ESOP”—employer stock
• named plaintiffs did not need to know “intricate details” of ERISA provisions and regulations that would be “a challenge for an experienced federal judge to make sense of”
• “ERISA class actions are commonly certified under either or both subsections of 23(b)(1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).