Legal Opinion

Hayes v. Motorists Mutual Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 28, 1987No. 1112PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WIEAND, Judge:

This is an appeal from an order denying class certification and directing that plaintiffs’ action proceed as an individual action via compulsory arbitration. The trial court held that plaintiffs had failed to satisfy the adequacy of representation requirement 1 and that their action had failed to satisfy the commonality, typicality, and predominance requisites for class certification. 2 Plaintiffs appealed. We conclude that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion by determining that the action failed to meet the commonality, typicality, and predominance requirements…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Bell v. Beneficial Consumer Discount Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  2. Rudbart v. North Jersey District Water Supply CommissionSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1992
  3. Janicik v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  4. Klemow v. Time IncorporatedSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  5. D'AMELIO v. Blue Cross of Lehigh ValleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Weismer v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  2. Prime Meats, Inc. v. YochimSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  3. Foust v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation AuthorityCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  4. Hanson v. Federal Signal Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  5. Weitzner v. Vaccess America Inc., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County2008

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API