Cartt v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KAUS, P. J.
This writ proceeding arises out of a typical consumer class action in which the damages sought by each of the class members are paltry—a few dollars at most—yet if there is any merit to the suit, the total recovery may run into six or seven figures. This, therefore, is precisely the type of action which results in “substantial benefits . .. both to the litigants and to the court” (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co., 67 Cal.2d 695, 713 [63 Cal.Rptr. 724, 433 P.2d) because “separate actions would be economically unfeasible” (id., at p. 715), which action, if meritorious, “produces several…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Fuentes v. ShevinSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- American Pipe & Construction Co. v. UtahSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay ViewSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.California Supreme Court · 1988
- Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 2000
- People v. Pacific Land Research Co.California Supreme Court · 1977
- Caro v. Procter & Gamble Co.California Court of Appeal · 1993
- Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2001
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.