Legal Opinion
Sperry v. Crompton Corp.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided February 22, 2007PublishedCited by 153 opinions
POINTS OF COUNSEL
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Graffeo, J.
Because we conclude that the treble damages provision in General Business Law § 340 serves as a penalty for purposes of CPLR 901 (b), such damages are not recoverable in a class action. We therefore affirm the order of the Appellate Division so holding.
Defendants Crompton Corporation, Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc., Uniroyal Chemical Company, Ltd., Flexsys NV, Flexsys America LI] Bayer AG, Bayer Corporation, Rhein Chemie Rheinau GmbH and Rhein Chemie Corporation produce and sell rubber-processing chemicals that improve the durability, color control and heat…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
- American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Inc. v. Hydrolevel Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Paramount Film Distributing Corp. v. StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1972
- Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. AbramsNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by153 opinions
- Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- Mandarin Trading Ltd. v. WildensteinNew York Court of Appeals · 2011
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Georgia Malone & Co. v. RiederNew York Court of Appeals · 2012
- City of New York v. MaulNew York Court of Appeals · 2010
148 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.