Opinion ID: 2175343
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: When may a class action be maintained under sec. 260.12, Stats.?

Text: Sec. 260.12, Stats., has been described as one of the worst provisions in the Field Code, [29] and has intentionally been left in vague language unamended. As an 1878 Revisor's note comments: . . . This section is not a very exact definition of the proceeding intended; but as the difficulty lies in the nature of the subject, it has seemed best to attempt no amendment, but to leave the requirements to be worked out by the courts as cases arise. See Stevens v. Brooks, 22 Wis. 663. [30] The first problem presented by this statutory provision is whether it should be read conjunctively or disjunctively. In Pipkorn v. Brown Deer , [31] the court noted that in contrast to the old equity practice the statute was designed to continue, some cases have held that it authorizes class actions in two different situations: [32] (1) Where the question is one of a common or general interest of many persons, or (2) where the parties are very numerous and it may be impracticable to bring them all before the court. In Pipkorn the court declined to resolve the issue since it found both requirements satisfied by the facts of the case. Actually, the difference between the two seems entirely abstract and of little practical significance. The court always requires class members to have some common or general interest and to be numerous. The statute should be construed to present only one set of criteria. These criteria were spelled out in Lozoff v. Kaisershot, [33] as follows: (1) The named parties must have a right or interest in common with the persons represented; (2) the named parties must fairly represent the interest or right involved so that the issue may be fairly and honestly tried; and (3) it must be impracticable to bring all interested persons before the court.