Bernard v. Ingersoll Milling Machine Co.

finding the typicality requirement met because the claims brought by the named plaintiffs and those brought on behalf of the class “stem from a single course of conduct” | noting that “factual differences will not render a claim atypical if the claim arises from the same event or practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of the class members, and if it is based on the same legal theory.” | finding the typicality requirement met because the claims brought by the named plaintiffs and those brought on behalf of the class “stem from a single course of conduct” | suit against union for violation of union constitutions maintained without joining a sec tion 301 claim against the employer | "It is the character of the work to be performed under the contract that is determinative of whether the agreement was maritime." | “It is the character of the work to be performed under the contract that is determinative of whether the agreement was maritime.” | no finding of discrimination where black plaintiff was not forever denied opportunity to train but had not yet received necessary training to qualify for particular position | dismissal of indictment for alleged constitutional violation warranted only upon demonstration of prejudice | named plaintiffs were typical although they did not share all of the class claims | “[A] shipper’s reason able expectation on booking cargo for shipment is that it will be stowed below deck, unless the shipper agrees to the contrary or a general port custom permits above deck stowage.” | “Where a breach of contract has caused a party to maintain a suit against a third person, courts have permitted recovery from the breaching party of counsel fees and other litigation expenses incurred in the suit” | burden of proving failure to mitigate