Rosener v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
California Court of Appeal
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
- Tinker v. ColwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Crisci v. Security InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- Taylor v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Brewer v. Second Baptist ChurchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Toole v. Richardson-Merrell Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1967
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.