Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

01-8016 Isaacs v. Sprint Corporation

By: dmc-admin//August 20, 2001//

01-8016 Isaacs v. Sprint Corporation

By: dmc-admin//August 20, 2001//

Listen to this article

“The certification order must be reversed, and not only because one-way intervention is forbidden. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)… The rule could not be clearer, and this is hardly a case in which class action treatment is obviously appropriate. Quite the contrary, it seems decidedly inappropriate. The case involves different conveyances by and to different parties made at different times over a period of more than a century (railroading began in the United States in the 1830s) in 48 different states (plus the District of Columbia) which have different laws regarding the scope of easements…, laws moreover that have changed over the period embracing the grant of property rights to railroads, Great Northern Ry. v. United States, 315 U.S. 262, 273-74 (1942), and whose application involves intricate legal and factual issues illustrated by Davis v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 606 So. 2d 734, 737 (Fla. App. 1992) (per curiam), making it unlikely that common issues predominate over individual-claim issues… This is a nightmare of a class action.”

Reversed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Reagan, J., Posner, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests