Legal Opinion
Chicken Delight, Inc. v. George B. Harris, District Judge, Harvey S. Siegel, Real Parties in Interest
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided June 2, 1969No. 23959_1PublishedCited by 39 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
2Per curiam
In a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, the Petitioners challenge a portion of an Order issued by the District Court on March 5,1969.
The Real Parties in Interest, Plaintiffs below, are five of some six-hundred fifty franchisees of the Petitioners who seek treble damages for Petitioners’ alleged unlawful monopolistic practices. They successfully advanced their contention that their suit was properly maintainable as a class action under Rule 23(a) and (b) (3), Fed.R.Civ.P. Siegel v. Chicken Delight, Inc., 271 F.Supp. 722 (N.D.Cal.1967). Discovery proceedings followed, after which a dispute…
3Cases cited1 opinion
- Siegel v. Chicken Delight, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 1967
4Cited by39 opinions
- In Re Multidistrict Vehicle Air Pollution M.D.L. No. 31. State of California v. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc., Robert Morgan v. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc., City of Philadelphia v. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc., State of New York v. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc., City of New York v. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc., City and County of Denver v. American Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1973
- Marshall v. Holiday Magic, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1977
- Gold Strike Stamp Company, a Utah Corporation v. A. Sherman Christensen, District Judge, B. Delos Gardner, Real Parties in InterestCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1970
- Ungar v. Dunkin' Donuts of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
- In Re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation State of California v. Standard Oil Company of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.