Case ID: pa_616/html/0354-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

47 A.3d 1174
    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.
    Nos. 551 EAL 2011, 552 EAL 2011.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    July 2, 2012.
   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 PostAllocatur Communications and a Reply are DENIED as moot.