Also known as: common question of law or fact · common questions of law or fact · commonality requirement · class action commonality
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A shared legal or factual issue arising in litigation that permits joinder of parties or supports class certification when it is common to multiple claims.
Quade Quimby and Queen Quintero, electrical and plumbing subcontractors on the same high-rise, each sue the general contractor for losses from identical project delays and plan revisions. Their claims share factual questions about the timing and cause of those disruptions. The court permits joinder because those overlapping issues satisfy the common-question requirement.
Quinton Quinones sues a federal agency over a licensing denial. Quartz Energy, a trade group, moves to intervene, asserting that its members face the same statutory interpretation question about eligibility criteria. The court grants intervention because the defense shares that common legal question with the main action.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Quoc Quan and hundreds of other investors sue a brokerage firm alleging misleading statements in a single prospectus. The court finds that questions about the materiality of those statements and the firm's scienter are common to the class. Certification proceeds because those issues predominate over individual reliance questions.
Quentin Quach and other smokers sue tobacco companies alleging addiction and health harms from decades of marketing. The court denies class certification because individual questions of personal reliance, causation, and damages overwhelm any shared issues about the companies' conduct. The common-question requirement is not satisfied at the predominance stage.
Quinn Quezada and thousands of exposed workers seek to settle future claims against multiple manufacturers in a single class action. The court refuses certification because the plaintiffs were exposed to different products under varying circumstances, creating too many distinct factual and legal questions. No single common question unites the class.
Quade Quimby and other asbestos claimants attempt to certify a limited-fund class against a single manufacturer. The court rejects certification because the claimants' exposures, injuries, and applicable defenses vary so widely that no common question of law or fact predominates across the proposed class.
Plaintiffs must demonstrate at least one question of law or fact common to all of them that will arise in the action. The rule requires only a single shared issue, not identity of every claim or remedy. Courts apply a logical-relationship test that focuses on whether the claims stem from the same transaction or series of occurrences and will generate overlapping factual or legal inquiries.
Yes. An intervenor must show that its claim or defense shares at least one question of law or fact with the main action. The standard mirrors the language in Rule 20 and promotes judicial efficiency by consolidating related disputes.
In Rule 23(b)(3) actions the common questions must predominate over individual ones, a stricter test than Rule 20's requirement of merely one shared issue. Courts therefore scrutinize whether the class-wide questions are both common and central enough to justify binding absent class members.
No. Distinct contracts or damage amounts do not automatically preclude a common question if the claims arise from the same occurrence or series of occurrences and share at least one overlapping factual or legal issue. Courts routinely permit joinder or class treatment when liability turns on shared conduct even if remedies differ.
…class. Rule 23 (c) (4) (B) may have had, as a forerunner, the proposal stated by Judge Weinstein in 1960: "When there is a question of law or fact common to persons of a numerous class whose joinder is impracticable, one or more of them whose claims or defenses are representative of the claims or defenses of all and who will fairly and…