ARMSTRONG ET AL.

v.

MARTIN MARIETTA CORP. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Rigoberto Morales v. Douglas Moss, M.D., 750 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
  …PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See McCain v. Florida Power Corp., 593 So. 2d 500 (Fla.1992); O’Shea v. Phillips, 746 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Van Horn v. Chambers, 970 S.W. 2d 542 (Tex.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1019, 119 S.Ct. 546, 142 L.Ed.2d 454 (1998).…
• Henry Lee "Leroy" Pickett v. Iowa Beef Processors, 209 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2000)
  …-1004 (11th Cir.1997). However, to the extent that the issue involves the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we review de novo. Armstrong v. Martin Marietta Corp., 138 F. 3d 1374, 1388 n. 30 (11th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1019, 119 S.Ct. 545, 142 L.Ed.2d 453 (1998). Rule 23(f) provides for our jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals from a district court’s order granting class certification, and we limit our discussion to that issue. We do not address the merits of Plaint…
• Moore v. Am. Fed'n OF Television & Radio Artists, 216 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2000)
  …se-of-discretion standard. Hudson v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 90 F. 3d 451, 455 (11th Cir.1996); see also Armstrong v. Martin Marietta Corp., 138 F. 3d 1374, 1381 (11th Cir.) (en banc) (“[D]emals of class certification usually stand.”), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1019, 119 S.Ct. 545, 142 L.Ed.2d 453 (1998). In order to obtain class certification of Counts II, V, VI, or VII, the plaintiffs had to satisfy all four of the conditions of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: (1) the class is so numerous…