Eleventh Circuit· 5/28/2009

Williams v. Mohawk Industries, Inc.

Citations

568 F.3d 1350
73 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 979
186 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2545
2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 11391
2009 WL 1476702

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).

Judges: Barkett, Pryor, Farris

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

62 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

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.