Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Rosener v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 30, 1980No. Civ. No. 41334Published

1ConcurrenceElkington, J.

I concur in the opinion of my respected colleagues for I find in it no error. I, as they, believe that the reduced $2.5 million punitive damage award is authorized by existing law.

I likewise concur in their view that the reprehensible conduct of defendant Sears, Roebuck & Company in this case is deserving of stern retribution. But I do not believe California’s legislative and judicial authority to be so barren of remedial resources that retribution may be accomplished only by giving to plaintiffs a windfall, to which they concededly have no right, of more than 15 times their total…

2Cases cited38 opinions

  1. Tinker v. ColwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
  2. Crisci v. Security InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
  3. Taylor v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Brewer v. Second Baptist ChurchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  5. Toole v. Richardson-Merrell Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1967

33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API