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.

 'The Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.' Amchem Prods., 521 U.S. at 623. In examining this requirement, the Court is to 'conduct a limited preliminary inquiry, looking behind the pleadings . . . to determine whether, given the factual setting of the case, if the plaintiffs' general allegations are true, common evidence could suffice to make out a prima facie case for the class.' Blades v. Monsanto Co., 400 F.3d 562, 566 (8th Cir. 2005) (internal citation omitted). 'This necessarily requires an examination of the underlying elements necessary to establish liability for plaintiffs' claims,' and the predominance standard is satisfied only if those elements 'can be proven on a systematic, class-wide basis.' Id. at 569 (citations omitted).  

Determining whether the plaintiffs can clear the predominance hurdle set by Rule 23(b)(3) requires district courts to consider 'how a trial on the merits would be conducted if a class were certified.' Sandwich Chef of Texas, Inc. v. Reliance Nat'l Ins. Indem. Co., 319 F.3d 205, 218 (5th Cir. 2003). This, in turn, 'entails identifying the substantive issues that will control the outcome, assessing ...

Register or login to access full content