Dailey v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Presented with a class certification motion, a trial court must examine the plaintiff's theory of recovery, assess the nature of the legal and factual disputes likely to be presented, and decide whether individual or common issues predominate. To the extent the propriety of certification depends upon disputed threshold legal or factual questions, a court may, and indeed must, resolve them.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Noel v. Thrifty Payless, Inc. · 219 Cal. Rptr. 3d 46 - Bartoni v. Am. Med. Response W.

2. “' " ( Martinez , supra , 231 Cal.App.4th at p. 375 , 179 Cal.Rptr.3d 867 .) "On the issue of whether common issues predominate in the litigation, a court must 'examine the plaintiff's theory of recovery' and 'assess the nature of the legal and factual disputes likely to be presented.' " ( Dailey , supra , 214 Cal.App.4th at p. 988 , 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 480 .) "The 'ultimate question' ... is whether 'the issues which may be jointly tried, when compared with those requiring separate adjudication, are so numerous or substantial that the maintenance of a class action would be advantageous to the judicial process and to the litigants.' ... 'As a general rule if the defendant's liability can be determined by facts common to all members of the class, a class will be certified even if the members must individually prove their damages.' " ( Brinker , supra , 53 Cal.4th at pp. 1021-1022, 139 Cal.Rptr.3d 315 , 273 P.3d 513 .) The trial court "must determine whether the elements necessary to establish liability are susceptible of common proof or, if not, whether there are ways to manage effectively proof of any elements that may require individualized evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kizer v. Tristar Risk Mgmt.

3. “Trial courts have discretion in granting or denying motions for class certification because they are well situated to evaluate the efficiencies and practicalities of permitting a class action. [Citation.] Despite this grant of discretion, appellate review of orders denying class certification differs from ordinary appellate review. Under ordinary appellate review, we do not address the trial court's reasoning and consider only whether the result was correct. [Citation.] But when denying class certification, the trial court must state its reasons, and we must review those reasons for correctness. [Citation.] We may only consider the reasons stated by the trial court and must ignore any unexpressed reason that might support the ruling.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 244 Cal. Rptr. 3d 612 - Myers v. Raley's