Page:Philip Morris Companies v. Miner.pdf/4

 358 Ark. 66, 73, 186 S.W.3d 695, 699 (2004). Philip Morris has not challenged the circuit court's ruling regarding numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy, so the only prerequisites at issue are predominance and superiority.

III. Commonality and Predominance
Although Philip Morris did not challenge the court's finding of commonality in its points on appeal, we discuss commonality here because it is intertwined with predominance. "One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class." Ark. R. Civ. P. 23(a). Citing to a leading treatise, we have noted that the commonality requirement is satisfied when a single common issue is present among the class members: "Rule 23(a)(2) does not require that all questions of law or fact raised in the litigation be common. The test or standard for meeting the rule 23(a)(2) prerequisite is that there need be only a single issue common to all members of the class When the party opposing the class has engaged in some course of conduct that affects a group of persons and gives rise to a cause of action, one or more of the elements of that cause of action will be common to all of the persons affected." Williamson v. Sanofi Winthrop Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 347 Ark. 89, 96, 60 S.W.3d 428, 432 (2001) (quoting Newberg, Class Actions § 3.10 (3d ed. 1993)). The circuit court must determine what elements in a cause of action are common questions for the purpose of