Legal Opinion
Charles I. Friedman, P.C. v. Microsoft Corp.
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided August 24, 2006No. 1 CA-CV 05-0313PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
KESSLER, Presiding Judge.
¶ 1 Microsoft appeals the superior court’s award of $19,132,728 in attorneys’ fees to class counsel 1 for their representation of the class members in this consolidated antitrust action. That award is based on a settlement agreement with a “face value” of $104.6 million and a provision that Microsoft pay class counsel “reasonable attorneys’ fees ... calculated on a common fund basis.” Microsoft argues that the superior court erred in the calculation of the attorneys’ fee award by applying a 3.42 multiplier to an incorrect lodestar 2 figure.
¶ 2 While we have…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean AirSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- City of Burlington v. DagueSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Illinois Brick Co. v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean AirSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Berry v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 2013
- In Re New Mexico Indirect Purchasers Microsoft Corp.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2006
- Murphy Farrell Development, LLLP v. SourantCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2012
- Maleki v. Desert Palms Professional Properties, L.L.C.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
- Geller v. LeskCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2012
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.