At 625: "The test for commonality is not demanding and is met 'where there is at least one issue, the resolution of which will affect all or a significant number of the putative class members.'" Id.: "Like commonality, the test for typicality is not demanding. It 'focuses on the similarity between the named plaintiffs' legal and remedial theories and the theories of those whom they purport to represent."
The court goes on to find the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., to be met. See: Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino, LLC, 186 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 1999).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino LLC
|Cite||186 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 1999)|
|Level||Court of Appeals|