Helpful Hints
- (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
- (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
- (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.
Requiring there to be common questions of law or fact prior to certifying a class serves chiefly two purposes: (1) ensuring that absentee members are fairly and adequately represented; and (2) ensuring practical and efficient case management. General Tel. Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 157 n.13, 72 L. Ed. 2d 740, 102 S. Ct. 2364 (1982). See Forbush v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 994 F.2d 1101, 1106 (5th Cir. 1993) (noting that the need for subsequent individual proceedings, even complex ones, 'does not supply a basis for concluding that [the named plaintiff] has not met the commonality requirement').
The class action device was designed as 'an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only.' Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U. S. 682, 442 U. S. 700-701. Class relief is 'peculiarly appropriate' when the 'issues involved are common to the class as a whole' and when they 'turn on questions of law applicable in the same manner to each member of the class.' Id. at 442 U. S. 701. For in such cases, 'the class action device saves the resources of both ...
