Williams v. Mohawk Industries, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that commonality requires the plaintiff to demonstrate there is “at least one issue whose resolution will affect all or a significant number of the putative class members.”
• explaining that a district court must consider, in conducting a predominance inquiry, “how the class will prove causation and injury and whether those elements will be subject to class-wide proof”
• stating that the manageability inquiry 17 focuses not on “whether this class action will create significant management problems, but instead 18 [on] whether it will create relatively more management problems than any of the alternatives”
• noting that Rule 23(a)(2) is a “low hurdle”
• “ ‘Since in theory there should be no hard requirement that (b)(2) be mutually exclusive, and since subpart (c)(4)(A
• “‘Since in theory there should be no hard requirement that (b)(2) be mutually exclusive, and since subpart (c)(4)(A

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).