From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Braun v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Jul 2, 2012
47 A.3d 1174 (Pa. 2012)

Opinion

Nos. 551 EAL 2011 552 EAL 2011.

2012-07-2

Michelle BRAUN, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Respondent v. WAL–MART STORES, INC., A Delaware Corporation, and Sam's Club, An Operating Segment of Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., Petitioners. Dolores Hummel, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Respondent v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., A Delaware Corporation, And Sam's Club, An Operating Segment of Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., Petitioners.


Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court, Nos. 551 EAL 2011, 552 EAL 2011.

Prior report: Pa.Super., 24 A.3d 875.

ORDER


PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 2nd day of JULY, 2012, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issue is:

Whether, in a purported class action tried to verdict, it violates Pennsylvania law (including the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure) to subject Wal–Mart to a “Trial by Formula” that relieves Plaintiffs of their burden to produce class-wide “common” evidence on key elements of their claims.

Further, Petitioners' Applications for Leave to File Post–Allocatur Communications and a Reply are DENIED as moot.


Summaries of

Braun v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Jul 2, 2012
47 A.3d 1174 (Pa. 2012)
Case details for

Braun v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Michelle BRAUN, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated…

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Date published: Jul 2, 2012

Citations

47 A.3d 1174 (Pa. 2012)

Citing Cases

Braun v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Whether, in a purported class action tried to verdict, it violates Pennsylvania law (including the…