Direct Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lane, 328 Ark. 476, 484, 944 S.W.2d 528, 530-31 (1997) (quoting Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co. v. Farm Bureau Policy Holders, 323 Ark. 706, 709-10, 918 S.W.2d 129, 130-31 (1996)). See also BPS Inc. v. Richardson, 2000 Ark. LEXIS 364, (Ark. July 7, 2000); Direct Ins. Company v. Lane, 944 S.W.2d 528, 531-32 (Ark. 1997).

California

Like the foregoing authorities, we view the question of certification as essentially a procedural one that does not ask whether an action is legally or factually meritorious.

Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co., 97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 179 (Cal. 2000).

Colorado
No cases directly discussing whether the merits of a case could be considered when deciding whether or not to certify a class. However, cases have noted that Colorado’s rule is identical to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and Colorado courts give great weight to federal cases decided under Rule 23.

Connecticut

When considering a motion to certify a class, the court will identify the substantive legal issues which control the litigation, but an inquiry into the merits is inappropriate.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]