United States v. Maghinang

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that class counsel “meet the basic standard for adequacy of counsel” despite having “no prior experience in prosecuting class action lawsuits”
• finding class counsel met the adequacy requirement in their first class action, based on their experience in the field, along with association with a class action counsel
• “Rule 23(b)(3) favors class actions where common questions of law or fact permit the court to ‘consolidate otherwise identical actions into a single efficient unit.’” (emphasis added and citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).