Hoover v. May Department Stores Co.
Appellate Court of Illinois
1DissentJustice Wineland
Because I cannot agree that this case should have been permitted to proceed as a class action, nor that the defendant violated the Illinois and Missouri retail credit statutes, nor that there is a basis in law or equity for the sweeping remedies fashioned by the trial court, I must respectfully dissent.
As this court said just three years ago, the class action is a device which requires “close and vigilant scrutiny” by the courts, and “should be resorted to only when complete justice to all interested parties will follow from its application.” (Dailey v. Sunset Hills Trust Estate, 30 Ill. App.…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Chicago v. Fieldcrest Dairies, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Brooks v. Midas-International Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1977
- Perlman v. First National Bank of ChicagoAppellate Court of Illinois · 1973
- Reardon v. Ford Motor Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1972
- Kimbrough v. ParkerAppellate Court of Illinois · 1951
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.