673, 675-76 (Iowa 1961); see also Iowa Code § 327G.77 (2009)). Second, Plaintiffs have failed to supply “evidence establishing or even suggesting” that the claims of some potential class members are too small to make individual litigation worthwhile. Id. at 7. Some evidence is required. Id. Third, assuming arguendo that Plaintiffs can establish a potential class of approximately 50 members, a class size in this range is not, without more, sufficient to satisfy the numerosity requirement. Id. at 8. The United States Court of Federal Claims has managed cases with more than 50 claimants through joinder. Jaynes v. United States, 69 Fed.Cl. 450, 454-55(2006) (finding that an estimated 258 members did not satisfy nu- merosity); see also O’Hanlon v. United States, 7 Cl.Ct. 204, 206 (1985) (<HOLDING>); Saunooke v. United States, 8 Cl.Ct. 327, 333
holding that an opinion of a potential danger to others is not sufficient to support a commitment under this standard holding 50 potential members was not sufficient holding that the jury is not to consider the potential punishment which could result from a conviction holding 39 potential members was not sufficient holding that the commission did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying a rulemaking petition because it considered several factors to determine whether an amendment to the regulations was  appropriate or necessary such as the potential benefits of the requested amendment potential costs and the relation between the potential benefits and costs