Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

10/31/88 John Key Et Al., Indiv. v. Jewel Companies

October 31, 1988

JOHN KEY ET AL., INDI

v.

AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CLASS OF PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED AND COMMONLY REFERRED

TO AS "OPERATORS OF WHITE HEN PANTRIES,", PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS

v.

JEWEL COMPANIES, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLEE



APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION

530 N.E.2d 1061, 176 Ill. App. 3d 91, 125 Ill. Dec. 652 1988.IL.1582

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Robert Sklodowski, Judge, presiding.

APPELLATE Judges:

JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the court. BUCKLEY and QUINLAN, JJ., concur.

DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE O'CONNOR

This is an appeal from an order granting defendant Jewel Companies' motion to strike class action allegations from plaintiffs' second amended complaint. Interlocutory appeal was allowed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308. (107 Ill. 2d R. 308.) The following questions were certified for appeal:

"(1) Whether the trial court erred under section 2 -- 801 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure in granting defendant's motion to strike class allegations on the grounds that:

Any common questions of law in this case are overshadowed by both questions of fact and particular applications of the law that would exist as to these franchisees.

Each plaintiff, and therefore class member thereafter, would have to prove that White Hen Pantry's conduct caused his business injury.

Any class action herein therefore would require . . . hundreds of new trials.

As pronounced in the Getz [ sic ] case and the Rice case before that, the point is that a class cannot be certified where the claimed injury would require an individual analysis of causation.

. . . favorable ruling as to a named plaintiff will not necessarily establish a right of recovery in the other class members.

(2) Whether the court's July 17, 1987 Order striking the class allegation from plaintiffs' second amended complaint was proper."

The procedural history of this litigation is set out below, in somewhat abbreviated form. Pertinent factual material about the parties which was the basis for the trial court's class action determination is addressed in our ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.