Hankerson v. North Carolina

employing a “common sense approach” and finding the commonality requirement satisfied where the class was “united by a common interest in determining whether a defendants’ course of conduct is in its broad outlines actionable.” | inquiring into the merits of claim inappropriate on class certification motion | fraud perpetrated on numerous persons by use of similar representations appealing situation for class actions | with respect to the element of reliance, a common question existed because reliance involved an objective—as opposed to a subjective—standard | conflict on damages does not preclude class certification unless it is imminent and at the very heart of the suit | trial judge deciding class certification motion "is necessarily bound to some degree of speculation by the uncertain state of the record on which he must rule" | class certification granted in action involving 27 month class period with more than 45 documents, including two annual reports, six quarterly reports and various press releases | “We think procedures can be found and used which will provide fairness to the defendants and a genuine resolution of disputed issues while obviating the danger of subverting the class action with delaying and harassing tactics” | “courts have generally declined to consider conflicts, particularly as they regard damages, sufficient to defeat class action status at the outset unless the conflict is apparent, imminent, and on an issue at the very heart of the suit” | ’[C]ourts have taken the common sense approach that the class is united by a common interest in determining whether defendant’s course of conduct is in its broad outlines actionable, which is not defeated by slight differences in class members’ positions[.]’ | “[C]ourts have taken the common sense approach that the class is united by a common interest in determining whether defendant’s course of conduct is in its broad outlines actionable, which is not defeated by slight differences in class members’ positions[.]” | “[C]ourts have taken the common sense approach that the class is united by a common interest in determining whether defendant’s course of conduct is in its broad outlines actionable, which is not defeated by slight differences in class members’ positions[.]” | ". . . As a result, courts have generally declined to consider conflicts, particularly as they regard damages, sufficient to defeat class action status at the outset unless the conflict is apparent, imminent, and on an issue at the very heart of the suit." | violation of section 28(a) of the 1934 Act | the leading case sanctioning the fraud on the market theory | “. . . As a result, courts have generally declined to consider conflicts, particularly as they regard damages, sufficient to defeat class action status, at the outset unless the conflict is apparent, imminent, and on an issue at the very heart of the suit.” | ". . . The fairness of the pressure i. e., the sociological merits of the small claims class action is not a question for us to decide. The fact is that Congress, by authorizing . . . Rule 23(b)(3) created a vehicle to put small claimants in an economically feasible litigating posture." | allowing certification despite analogous problems | “. . . The fairness of the pressure — i. e., the sociological merits of the small claims class action — is not a question for us to decide. The fact is that Congress, by authorizing . . Rule 23(b)(3) created a vehicle to put small claimants in an economically feasible litigating posture.”