Legal Opinion
McMerty v. Burtness
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided October 22, 1976No. Civ-6-76-55PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DEVITT, Chief Judge.
The principal issue raised by plaintiffs’ motion to maintain this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is whether the claims of the class present common issues of law and fact which predominate over individual issues as is required by Rule 23(b)(3). The named plaintiffs are individual purchasers and the representative of a group of purchasers who bought self-service postal units from Zip-Go, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Advanced Plastics, Inc. Defendants were officers or directors of the two…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,853 John Schlick v. Penn-Dixie Cement CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974
- In Re Caesars Palace Securities LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1973
- Simon v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1973
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,042 Titan Group, Inc. v. Harold FaggenCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- In Re USACafes, L.P. LitigationCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1991
- Adair v. Hunt International Resources Corp.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1981
- Hill v. DerDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1981
- Thompson v. American Tobacco Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1999
- O'Neil v. AppelDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1996
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.