Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Goldman v. First Nat. Bank of Chicago

56 F.R.D. 587 (N.D. Ill. 1972)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Goldman v. First Nat. Bank of Chicago

30 Citing cases

  1. Goldman v. First Nat. Bank of Chicago

    532 F.2d 10 (7th Cir. 1976)   Cited 76 times
    Holding in open-end credit case that "the limitations period should not be measured from the date the disclosure was required by law to be made, but instead by the date on which a finance charge was first imposed."

    There have been two lower court opinions in this case. The class action determination was denied in Goldman v. First National Bank, 56 F.R.D. 587 (N.D.Ill. 1972). The statute of limitations decision is reported at 392 F. Supp. 214 (N.D.Ill. 1975).

  2. Robertson v. National Basketball Association

    389 F. Supp. 867 (S.D.N.Y. 1975)   Cited 39 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Robertson v. National Basketball Association, 389 F.Supp. 867, 897 (S.D.N.Y.1975), the court held that a Rule (b)(1) class was " neither amorphous nor imprecise" although it contained future members.

    It cannot realistically be contended that treble damages sought here by over 365 persons are ancillary or appurtenant to injunctive relief. See, e. g., Eisen v. Carlisle Jacquelin, 391 F.2d 555, 564. (2d Cir. 1968); Free World Foreign Cars, Inc. v. Alfa Romeo, 55 F.R.D. 26, 29 n. 9 (S.D.N.Y. 1972); Graybeal v. American Savings Loan Association, 59 F.R.D. 7 (D.D.C. 1973); Goldman v. First National Bank, 56 F.R.D. 587, 592-93 (N.D.Ill. 1972); Bahan v. Southern Bell Telephone Telegraph Co., 55 F.R.D. 478, 480-81 (W.D.La. 1972); Alsup v. Montgomery Ward Co., 57 F.R.D. 89 (N.D.Cal. 1972); Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 62 F.R.D. 124, 133 (E.D.Pa. 1973). Advisory Committee's Note to Rule 23, 39 F.R.D. 98, 102 (1966).

  3. Linn v. Target Stores, Inc.

    61 F.R.D. 469 (D. Minn. 1973)

    In view of the court's disposition of this motion on other grounds a direct ruling on adequacy is unnecessary. Cf. Goldman v. First Natl. Bank of Chicago, 56 F.R.D. 587, 589 (N.D.Ill.1972).           Next the court must satisfy itslef that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) are present.

  4. Alpert v. U.S. Industries, Inc.

    59 F.R.D. 491 (C.D. Cal. 1973)   Cited 14 times

    Since this action is for money damages, the class action may not be maintained under Rule 23(b)(1)(A). Rodriguez v. Family Publications Service, (C.D.Cal.1972) 57 F.R.D. 189, 192 and cases therein cited; Goldman v. First National Bank of Chicago, (N.D.Ill.E.D.1972) 56 F.R.D. 587, and cases therein cited.          9.

  5. Alsup v. Montgomery Ward & Co.

    57 F.R.D. 89 (N.D. Cal. 1972)   Cited 21 times
    Denying certification in TILA case seeking $20 million in statutory damages for one class and $8 billion for another

    See Advisory Committee's Note, 39 F.R.D. 98, 101. Following this reasoning, Judge Bauer found subsection (b)(1)(B) inapplicable in Goldman v. First National Bank of Chicago, 56 F.R.D. 587 (N.D.Ill., filed September 22, 1972).          In Mullen plaintiff has also invoked Rule 23(b)(2) on the ground that appropriate relief in this case may take the form of an injunction.

  6. Susman v. Lincoln American Corp.

    561 F.2d 86 (7th Cir. 1977)   Cited 220 times
    Holding class counsel's brother was an inadequate class representative

    The Second, Third and Sixth Circuits have, however, considered various aspects of this question. In Goldman v. First National Bank of Chicago, 56 F.R.D. 587 (N.D.Ill. 1972), defendant questioned the ability of plaintiff to act as class representative on the grounds that plaintiff was also acting as attorney of record. Then District Judge Bauer without ruling on the question noted the following language from Shields v. Valley National Bank, 56 F.R.D. 448 (N.Ariz. 1972):

  7. Katz v. Carte Blanche Corporation

    496 F.2d 747 (3d Cir. 1974)   Cited 822 times
    Holding a controlling question of law encompasses "every order which, if erroneous, would be reversible error on final appeal" as well as questions "serious to the conduct of the litigation, either practically or legally"

    Co., 333 F. Supp. 1243 (N.D.Ga. 1971); Ratner v. Chem. Bank New York Trust Co., 54 F.R.D. 412 (S.D.N.Y. 1972); Gerlach v. Allstate Co., 338 F. Supp. 642 (S.D.Fla. 1972); Rogers v. Coburn Fin. Corp., 54 F.R.D. 417 (N.D.Ga. 1972), modifying 53 F.R.D. 182 (N.D.Ga. 1971); Kenney v. Landis Financial Group, Inc., 349 F. Supp. 939 (N.D.Iowa 1972); Shields v. Valley Nat'l Bank, 56 F.R.D. 448 (D.Ariz. 1971); Wilcox v. Commerce Bank, 55 F.R.D. 134 (D.Kan. 1972), aff'd, 474 F.2d 336 (10th Cir. 1973); Roesel v. Fulton Nat'l Bank, Civ. No. 15376 (N.D.Ga., May 25, 1972); Grubb v. Dollar Loan Co., Civ. Nos. 15550, 15976 (N.D.Ga., May 25, 1972); Shields v. First Nat'l Bank, 56 F.R.D. 442 (D.Ariz. 1972); Greer v. Sears, Roebuck Co., Civ. No. 72-80 (S.D.W.Va., July 3, 1972); Kriger v. European Health Spa, Inc., 56 F.R.D. 104 (E.D.Wis. 1972); Boggs v. Alto Trailer Sales, Inc., Civ. No. 71-1271 (E.D.La., Aug. 7, 1972); Haynes v. Logan Furniture Mart, Inc., Civ. No. 70-C-1827 (N.D.Ill., Sept. 20, 1972); Goldman v. First Nat'l Bank, 56 F.R.D. 587 (N.D.Ill. 1972); Johnson v. Austin Furniture, Inc., Civ. No. 72-C-724 (N.D.Ill., Oct. 10, 1972); Garza v. Chicago Health Clubs, Inc., 56 F.R.D. 548 (N.D.Ill. 1972), modifying 329 F. Supp. 936 (N.D.Ill. 1971); Rodriquez v. Family Publications Serv., Inc., 57 F.R.D. 189 (C.D.Cal. 1972); Alsup v. Montgomery Ward Co., 57 F.R.D. 89 (N.D.Cal. 1972); Mullen v. Montgomery Ward Co., Inc., 57 F.R.D. 89 (N.D.Cal. 1972); Kroll v. Cities Serv. Oil Co., 352 F. Supp. 357 (N.D.Ill. 1972); Hunter v. Gross Bros. Furniture Inc., Civ. No. C-71-2443 (N.D.Cal., Dec. 20, 1972); Winston v. Nat'l Bank of Commerce, Civ. No. 71-1986 (E.D.La., Feb. 9, 1973); Berkman v. Sinclair Oil Corp., 59 F.R.D. 602 (N.D.Ill. 1973); Roth v. Community Nat'l Bank, Civ. No. C-72-1031 (N.D.Ohio, Mar. 13, 1973); Lindig v. City Nat'l Bank, 59 F.R.D. 154 (S.D.Ohio 1973); Coleman v. City Fin. Co., Inc., Civ. No. 72-685-K (D.Md., Mar. 27, 1973); Hollis v. Tucker, Civ. No. 72-735-K (D.Md., Mar. 27, 1973); Graybeal v. American Sav. Loan Ass'n, 59 F.

  8. La Mar v. H & B Novelty & Loan Co.

    489 F.2d 461 (9th Cir. 1973)   Cited 302 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that named plaintiffs could not bring a class action against defendants that did not injure them, "even though the plaintiff may have suffered an identical injury at the hands of a party other than the defendant"

    The clear trend of authority for actions alleging a violation of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, commonly known as the "Truth-in-Lending Act", 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. and Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.1 et seq., promulgated by the Federal Reserve Board, holds that class actions are inappropriate. See e. g., Goldman v. First Nat'l Bank of Chicago, 56 F.R.D. 587 (N.D.Ill., 1972); Garza v. Chicago Health Clubs, Inc., 56 F.R.D. 548 (N.D.Ill., 1972); Shields v. First Nat'l Bank of Arizona, 56 F.R.D. 442 (D.Ariz., 1972); Kriger v. European Health Spa, Inc., of Milwaukee, Wisc., 56 F.R.D. 104 (E.D.Wis., 1972); Wilcox v. Commerce Bank, 55 F.R.D. 134 (D.Kan., 1972) aff'd 474 F.2d 336 (10th Cir. 1973); Kenney v. Landis Financial Group, Inc., 349 F. Supp. 939 (N.D.Iowa, 1972); Gerlach v. Allstate Insurance Co., 338 F. Supp. 642 (S.D.Fla. 1972); Ratner v. Chemical Bank N.Y. Trust Co., 54 F.R.D. 412 (S.D.N.Y. 1972). No opinion is expressed here regarding the effect, if any, the filing of these actions may have on the applicable limitation period.

  9. Wilcox v. Commerce Bank of Kansas City

    474 F.2d 336 (10th Cir. 1973)   Cited 100 times
    Holding district court did not abuse discretion when it denied class certification for TILA violations case where class members were not harmed and aggregate of statutory damages would be extremely large

    Gerlach v. Allstate Insurance Co., 338 F. Supp. 642 (S.D.Fla. 1972). Goldman v. The First National Bank of Chicago. (N.D.Ill. 1972), 56 F.R.D. 587 (N.D.Ill. 1972). Grubb v. Dollar Loan Co., Civil Actions Nos. 15550, 15976 (N.D.Ga., filed May 26, 1972).

  10. BOWE BELL + HOWELL COMPANY v. IMMCO EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION

    No. 03 C 8010 (N.D. Ill. May. 11, 2005)   Cited 4 times

    However, the application of the doctrine of stare decisis is the only possible effect of a ruling in favor of Plaintiff; however, stare decisis alone is not a reason to grant certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(B). See Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385, 405-07 (1986); Goldman v. First Nat'l Bank of Chicago, 56 F.R.D. 587, 591 (N.D. Ill. 1972), rev'd on other grounds, 532 F.2d 10 (7th Cir. 1976). Because class members are not provided notice or an opportunity to opt out of a class certified under Rule 23(b)(1)(B), the rule is interpreted narrowly.