Legal Opinion

Bruno v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 23, 1981No. Civ. 25964PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MORRIS, J.

This petition for a writ of mandate presents the issue, previously undecided in California, of the propriety of using so-called “fluid class” or “cy pres” procedures to distribute damages in state antitrust class actions, We conclude that these methods of distribution are not per se improper in such cases. Consequently the trial court abused its discretion in granting a motion to strike those remedies from the petitioners’ amended complaint. We grant the writ.

I

Petitioners are eight plaintiffs suing, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, three supermarket…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Reiter v. Sonotone Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1979
  4. Reiter v. Sonotone Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1979
  5. Boeing Co. v. Van GemertSupreme Court of the United States · 1980

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. John M. Dimidowich, Dba Micro Image v. Bell & HowellCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
  2. Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Caro v. Procter & Gamble Co.California Court of Appeal · 1993
  4. Bell v. Farmers Insurance ExchangeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
  5. Alch v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API