In Re Int'l House of Pancakes Franchise Litig.. Robert J. Helfenbein & Circle Investments of Missouri, Inc., on Behalf of Themselves, Etc. v. Int'l Indus., Inc., Robert J. Helfenbein & Crescent Inv. of Iowa, Inc., on Behalf of Themselves, Etc. v. Int'l Indus., Inc., Joe Jimmie Reed, on Behalf of Himself, Etc., & Thomas Lee Simmons, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee v. Int'l Indus., Inc., Rudolf Weth, on Behalf of Himself, Etc. v. Int'l Indus., Inc., Richard L. Erickson v. Int'l Indus., Inc., 487 F.2d 303 (8th Cir. 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Int'l House of Pancakes Franchise Litig.. Robert J. Helfenbein & Circle Investments of Missouri, Inc., on Behalf of Themselves, Etc. v. Int'l Indus., Inc., Robert J. Helfenbein & Crescent Inv. of Iowa, Inc., on Behalf of Themselves, Etc. v. Int'l Indus., Inc., Joe Jimmie Reed, on Behalf of Himself, Etc., & Thomas Lee Simmons, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee v. Int'l Indus., Inc., Rudolf Weth, on Behalf of Himself, Etc. v. Int'l Indus., Inc., Richard L. Erickson v. Int'l Indus., Inc., 487 F.2d 303 (8th Cir. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
33 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In Re Wireless Telephone Federal Cost Recovery Fees Litigation
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1973 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Wireless Telephone Federal Cost Recovery Fees Litigation
unknown court · 2005 · confidence medium
Litig., 350 F.3d 747, 751-52 (8th Cir.2003); In re Int'l House of Pancakes Franchise Litig., 487 F.2d 303, 304 (8th Cir.1973). 31 A district court is required to consider four factors in determining whether a settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate: (1) the merits of the plaintiff's case, weighed against the terms of the settlement; (2) the defendant's financial condition; (3) the complexity and expense of further litigation; and (4) the amount of opposition to the settlement.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Steven Robertson v. Nextel West Corp.
8th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
Litig., 350 F.3d 747, 751-52 (8th Cir.2003); In re Int’l House of Pancakes Franchise Litig., 487 F.2d 303, 304 (8th Cir.1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ruth Durrett v. Housing Authority of the City of Providence (2×)
1st Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
Co., 447 F.2d 647, 655 (7th Cir.1971), stated that the abuse of discretion standard applied "in reviewing the appropriateness of the settlement approval or disapproval." (Emphasis supplied.) 9 Subsequently, the Eighth Circuit, in In re International House of Pancakes Franchise Litigation, 487 F.2d 303, 304 (8th Cir.1973), relying on the above cited cases, applied the abuse of discretion standard in affirming a district court's refusal to approve a proposed settlement.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Behrens v. Wometco Enterprises, Inc.
S.D. Fla. · 1988 · confidence medium
See In re Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Etc., 669 F.2d 228, 238 (5th Cir.1982); City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 455 (2d Cir.1974); In re International House of Pancakes Franchise Litigation, 487 F.2d 303, 304 (8th Cir.1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of Labor v. Loran W. Robbins, and Allen M. Dorfman (2×)
7th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Abuse of discretion is the standard in Williams v. City of New Orleans, supra, 694 F.2d at 992 , on rehearing, 729 F.2d at 1558-59 (en banc), and In re International House of Pancakes Franchise Litigation, 487 F.2d 303, 304 (8th Cir.1973), and implicitly in SEC v. Randolph, 736 F.2d 525, 529 (9th Cir.1984), and Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 654 F.2d 300, 301 (4th Cir.1981) (per curiam) (en banc); see also United Founders Life Ins.
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Chicken Antitrust Litigation American Poultry
5th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
Accord, City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 455 (2d Cir. 1974); In re International House of Pancakes Franchise Litigation, 487 F.2d 303, 304 (8th Cir. 1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Traffic Executive Association Eastern Railroads, Axinn & Sons Lumber Co., Inc. v. The Long Island Rail Road Company, and Third-Party v. Traffic Executive Association Eastern Railroads, Third-Party
2d Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
Pfizer & Co., 440 F.2d 1079 , 1085 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 871 , 92 S.Ct. 81 , 30 L.Ed.2d 115 (1971); In re International House of Pancakes Franchise Litigation, 487 F.2d 303, 304 (8th Cir. 1973); Norman v. McKee, 431 F.2d 769, 774 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 912 , 91 S.Ct. 879 , 27 L.Ed.2d 811 (1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Axinn & Sons Lumber Co. v. Long Island Rail Road
2d Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
Pfizer & Co., 440 F.2d 1079 , 1085 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 871 , 92 S.Ct. 81 , 30 L.Ed.2d 115 (1971); In re International House of Pancakes Franchise Litigation, 487 F.2d 303, 304 (8th Cir. 1973); Norman v. McKee, 431 F.2d 769, 774 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 912 , 91 S.Ct. 879 , 27 L.Ed.2d 811 (1971).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jack Reynolds v. National Football League, Charles Young v. National Football League, Marvin Crenshaw v. National Football League
8th Cir. · 1978 · confidence medium
In re International House of Pancakes Franchise Litigation, 487 F.2d 303, 304 (8th Cir. 1973) .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Abraham Grunin v. International House of Pancakes, a Division of International Industries, Inc., Shapiro, Posell & Pilling and Mitchell S. Shapiro v. International House of Pancakes, a Division of International Industries, Inc., Mark J. Klein v. International House of Pancakes, a Division of International Industries, Inc., David Berger, P. A., Cross-Appellant v. Mark J. Klein, Cross-Appellee
8th Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
In re International House of Pancakes Franchise Litigation, 487 F.2d 303, 304 (8th Cir. 1973).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Grunin v. International House of Pancakes
8th Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
In re International House of Pancakes Franchise Litigation, 487 F.2d 303, 304 (8th Cir. 1973).
discussed Cited "see" Jessica Vanicek v. Lyman-Richey Corporation
8th Cir. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Int’l House of Pancakes Franchise Litig., 487 F.2d 303, 304 (8th Cir. 1973); see also Kramer v. Cash Link Sys., 715 F.3d 1082, 1086 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that the standard of review is a procedural issue governed by federal law even when the Court sits in diversity jurisdiction).
discussed Cited "see" UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF ALEXANDRIA Et Al., Defendants-Appellees (2×)
5th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re International House of Pancakes Franchise Litigation, 487 F.2d 303, 304 (8th Cir. 1973). 7 This extension by the Eighth Circuit to disapprovals of settlements was done in summary fashion, and without analysis.
cited Cited "see" David Seigal and Ethel Seigal v. David Merrick, and William T. Gossett, William R. Hearst, Jr., Warren Hellman, H. Blackmer Johnson, John H. Johnson, William C. Keefe, Ralph F. Lewis, Malcolm A. MacIntyre Harry McIntyre John T. Pollock, Dennis C. Stanfill, Gordon Stulberg, Gerald Trautman, John L. Vogelstein, and Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, and Muriel Koby, George Rosen and Sandra Sachs, Intervenors-Objectors-Appellees. Harry Gehler v. William R. Hearst, Jr., H. Blackmer Johnson, John J. Johnson, William C. Keefe, Malcolm A. MacIntyre John T. Pollock, Ralph Lewis, Dennis C. Stanfill, Gordon Stulberg, Gerald A. Trautman, William T. Gossett, and David Merrick, and Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, and Muriel Koby, George Rosen and Sandra Sachs, Intervenors-Objectors-Appellees
2d Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re International House of Pancakes Franchise Litigation, 487 F.2d 303 (8th Cir. 1973)
cited Cited "see" Seigal v. Merrick
2d Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re International House of Pancakes Franchise Litigation, 487 F.2d 303 (8th Cir. 1973).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Carson v. American Brands, Inc.
SCOTUS · 1981 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also In re International House of Pancakes Franchise Litigation, 487 F. 2d 303 (CA8 1973) (refusal to enter proposed settlement agreement appealable; no discussion of jurisdictional question). 7 We therefore need not decide whether the order is also appealable under 28 U. S. C. § 1291 . 8 This statutory exception was first established by the Evarts Act of 1891, § 7, 26 Stat. 828 , which authorized interlocutory appeals “where . . . an injunction shall be granted or continued by interlocutory order or decree.” In 1895, that Act was amended to extend the right of appeal to orders of th…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Buchanan v. Century Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1978 · signal: see also · confidence low
Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions, § 5601 d (1977) (footnote omitted); see also International House of Pancakes Franchise Litigation, 1973-2 Trade Cases 74 , 616 (W.D.Mo. 1973), aff'd 487 F.2d 303 (8th Cir. 1973); Cannon v. Texas Gulf Sulphur, 55 F.R.D. 308 (S.D.N.Y. 1972). .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Buchanan v. CENTURY FED. SAV. & L. ASS'N
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1978 · signal: see also · confidence low
Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions, § 5601 d (1977) (footnote omitted); see also International House of Pancakes Franchise Litigation, 1973-2 Trade Cases 74 , 616 (W.D.Mo. 1973), aff'd 487 F.2d 303 (8th Cir. 1973); Cannon v. Texas Gulf Sulphur, 55 F.R.D. 308 (S.D.N.Y. 1972). [22] The court subsequently did approve a settlement with Dollar Savings Bank and Suburban Savings and Loan Association which basically provided for either the payment of interest at a rate of 1¼% below passbook rates (currently this would be approximately 4%) or the capitalization of the tax and insurance payments.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re International House of Pancakes Franchise Litigation. Robert J. Helfenbein and Circle Investments of Missouri, Inc., on Behalf of Themselves, Etc.
v.
International Industries, Inc., Robert J. Helfenbein and Crescent Investment of Iowa, Inc., on Behalf of Themselves, Etc. v. International Industries, Inc., Joe Jimmie Reed, on Behalf of Himself, Etc., and Thomas Lee Simmons, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee v. International Industries, Inc., Rudolf Weth, on Behalf of Himself, Etc. v. International Industries, Inc., Richard L. Erickson v. International Industries, Inc.
73-1574.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Nov 2, 1973.
487 F.2d 303
Cited by 23 opinions  |  Published

487 F.2d 303

1973-2 Trade Cases 74,760

In re INTERNATIONAL HOUSE OF PANCAKES FRANCHISE LITIGATION.
Robert J. HELFENBEIN and Circle Investments of Missouri,
Inc., on behalf of themselves, etc., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Robert J. HELFENBEIN and Crescent Investment of Iowa, Inc.,
on behalf of themselves, etc., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Joe Jimmie REED, on behalf of himself, etc.,
Plaintiff-Appellee, and Thomas Lee Simmons,
Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
Rudolf WETH, on behalf of himself, etc., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
Richard L. ERICKSON, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 73-1574.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Nov. 2, 1973.

Harry L. Gershon, Los Angeles, Cal., and Maurice O'Sullivan and Thomas J. Wheatley, Kansas City, Mo., made appearance for defendants-appellants in this Court.

Barton P. Cohen, Overland Park, Kan., and Loeb H. Granoff Kansas City, Mo., filed motion of plaintiffs-appellees to affirm.

Before GIBSON, LAY and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges.SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER OF SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE

[*~303]1

This Court, on September 26, 1973, entered our order summarily affirming an order of the District Court for the Western District of Missouri, The Honorable William R. Collinson. The District Court's order disapproved a proposed settlement agreement between International Industries, Inc., the defendant in a multi-district class action suit alleging violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and certain of the numerous plaintiffs in the case. The proposed settlement agreement had been actively opposed by a number of the plaintiffs at the hearing on the proposed settlement agreement.

2

After our order of summary affirmance had been entered, defendant-appellant filed suggestions in opposition to the motion to affirm which had been filed by the plaintiff-appellees in violation of Rule 9(b)[1] of the Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in that it was filed prior to the filing of appellant's brief. However, as our order of September 26, 1973, recites, our action of summary affirmance was based as well on Rule 9(a)[2] of the Local Rules, which provides that the Court upon its own motion may summarily affirm when the questions presented do not require further argument.

3

To insure that the interests of justice have been served in this appeal, we have carefully considered the suggestions filed in opposition to summary affirmance. Upon review of the record and the suggestions, we conclude that there is no clear showing that the trial court was guilty of an abuse of discretion in refusing to approve the proposed settlement. This is the standard of review we apply to an appeal of the approval or disapproval of a proposed settlement. See, United Founders Life Ins. Co. v. Consumers Nat. Life Ins. Co., 447 F.2d 647, 655 (7th Cir. 1971); West Virginia v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., 440 F.2d 1079, 1085 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Cotler Drugs Inc. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., 404 U.S. 871, 92 S.Ct. 81, 30 L.Ed.2d 115 (1971).

4

In view of the fact that members of the plaintiff class opposed the settlement and that it would continue in effect the very provisions of the franchise agreement challenged as violative of the anti-trust laws, we think Judge Collinson properly exercised his discretion in disapproving the settlement. Our Order of Summary Affirmance filed September 26, 1973, pursuant to Local Rule 9(a) was correct and will not be disturbed.

[*~304]5

This supplemental order, after consideration of appellant's suggestions and contentions, reaffirms our prior order summarily dismissing the appeal and affirming the order of the District Court disapproving the proposed settlement.

1

Rule 9(b) of the Local Rules provides in pertinent part:

The appellee may file a motion for summary disposition of a docketed appeal. * * * A motion to affirm may be based on the ground that the questions presented for review are so unsubstantial as not to need further argument. * * *

* * * A motion to dismiss on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and entirely without merit or a motion to affirm must be filed within fifteen (15) days after the appellant's brief has been filed, but may not be filed prior to the filing of appellant's brief. (emphasis supplied).

2

Rule 9(a) of the Local Rules provides in pertinent part:

The Court may at any time, on its own motion and without notice, dispose of an appeal summarily * * *. The court may dismiss an appeal that is not within the jurisdiction of the court or that it finds to be frivolous and entirely without merit, or may affirm or reverse when the questions presented do not require further argument.