# ARKANSAS BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD v. Hicks

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · June 13, 2002 · 349 Ark. 269

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9680978

## Case

- **Full name:** ARKANSAS BLUE CROSS and BLUE SHIELD, a Mutual Insurance Company v. Ollie HICKS and Higine Hicks
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** June 13, 2002
- **Citations:** 349 Ark. 269; 78 S.W.3d 58; 2002 Ark. LEXIS 362
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Imber
- **Judges:** Donald L. Corbin
- **Cited by:** 34 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9680978

## Opinion text

Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice, concurring. I agree with the majority’s decision, and write separately only to clarify that the Appellees in this case are not required to produce a list identifying all members of the class. As the majority recognizes, the class description must only be definite enough so that it is administratively feasible for the court to determine whether a particular individual is a member of the proposed class. See Ferguson v. Kroger Co., 343 Ark. 627 , 37 S.W.3d 590 (2001). See also Fabricant v. Sears Roebuck, 202 F.R.D. 306 (S.D. Fla. 2001); Mueller v. CBS, Inc., 200 F.R.D. 227 (W.D. Pa. 2001); 5 James Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 23.21 [1] (3d ed. 1997).
More precisely, it is generally recognized that the definition of a class need not be so specific that every potential member must be identifiable at the outset of the action. See Cherokee Nation of Okla. v. United States, 199 F.R.D. 357 (E.D. Okla. 2001); O’Connor v. Boeing N. Am., Inc., 184 F.R.D. 311 (C.D. Cal. 1998); Joseph v. General Motors Corp., 109 F.R.D. 635 (D. Colo. 1986); In re Tetracycline Cases, 107 F.R.D. 719 (W.D. Mo. 1985); 5 James Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 23.21 [2] (3d ed. 1997); 7A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 1760 (2d ed. 1986). A party seeking class certification is not required to state the exact number of members of the proposed class or to specifically identify each class member. 5 James Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 23.22[3][b] (3d ed. 1997). Rather, the identity of class members must be readily ascertainable by reference to objective criteria such that the court can determine whether a person is a member of the class. Ferguson v. Kroger Co., supra. See also Garrish v. United Auto., Aerospace, And Agric. Implement Workers of Am., 149 F. Supp. 2d 326 (E.D. Mich. 2001); Fabricant v. Sears Roebuck, supra. Thus, the class definition in this case is sufficiently .precise and objective so that it will be administratively feasible for the trial court to ascertain whether an individual is a member of the class.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9680978. Public record. Not legal advice.