the circuit court denied class certification. This court affirmed, holding that “this case presents numerous individual issues that go to the heart of the defendants’ conduct, causation, injury, and damages such that the defendants’ liability as to each plaintiff will have to be resolved on a case-by-case basis.” Baker, 338 Ark. at 249, 992 S.W.2d at 801. We further observed that the amount or combination of diet drugs a plaintiff took, combined with his or her personal medical history, might make the drugs dangerous for one party and not for another. We also commented that “the only thing the plaintiffs have in common is that they all took one or a combination of the diet drugs listed in the complaint.” Id.; see also Mittry v. Bancorpsouth Bank, 360 Ark. 249, 200 S.W.3d 869 (2005) (<HOLDING>). The common thread in Hernandez, Vickers, and
holding that rule 23b2 calls for injunction as to all class members or to none of them and does not authorize class certification when each class member would be entitled to an individualized award of monetary damages holding that individualized questions concerning the defendants responsibility for diminished sales prices of class members bonds predominated over any common questions rendering class certification inappropriate holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification holding that the mere existence of individualized factual questions with respect to the class representatives claim will not bar class certification holding that certification of ab3 class on the basis of an overarching dispute about the health consequences of asbestos alone was inappropriate given the greater number of questions peculiar to the individual class members