Legal Opinion
In Re South Dakota Microsoft Antitrust Litigation
South Dakota Supreme Court
Decided November 16, 2005No. NonePublishedCited by 39 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GILBERTSON, Chief Justice.
[¶ 1.] South Dakota indirect-purchasers of Microsoft operating systems software brought a state antitrust class action against Microsoft. A settlement agreement reached by the parties and approved by the trial court included the payment of Plaintiffs’ “reasonable attorney fees” by Microsoft. After the settlement was approved by the trial court, it retained jurisdiction to decide the Plaintiffs’ application for attorney fees, expenses and costs at a later date. On November 10, 2004, the trial court entered an order awarding attorney fees, expenses and costs in the…
2Cases cited71 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Parker v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corporation, Manhattan-Ward, Incorporated v. Grinnell Corporation, 1225 Vine Street Building, Inc. v. Grinnell CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974
- City of Riverside v. RiveraSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
66 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- In Re New Mexico Indirect Purchasers Microsoft Corp.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2006
- Miller v. JacobsenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2006
- Rupert v. City of Rapid CitySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2013
- Charles I. Friedman, P.C. v. Microsoft Corp.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2006
- Eagle Ridge Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. AndersonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2013
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.