48 Cited authorities

Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds
568 U.S. 455 (2013) Cited 1,819 times 100 Legal Analyses
Holding that certain merits questions “should not be resolved in deciding whether to certify a proposed class,” but are “properly addressed at trial or in a ruling on a summary-judgment motion”
Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.
573 U.S. 258 (2014) Cited 594 times 90 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendants may seek to rebut the Basic presumption at the class certification stage through evidence that the misrepresentation had no price impact
Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes Lerach
523 U.S. 26 (1998) Cited 845 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that, because the remand requirement is absolute, the transferee court may not invoke the change-of-venue statute to assign transferred cases to itself for trial
West Virginia Univ. Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey
499 U.S. 83 (1991) Cited 802 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the term "reasonable attorney's fee" in 42 U.S.C. § 1988 does not provide the "explicit statutory authority" required to award expert witness fees beyond those provided by §§ 1920 and 1821
Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois
431 U.S. 720 (1977) Cited 1,287 times 61 Legal Analyses
Holding that indirect purchasers cannot recover damages under federal antitrust law
Hanover Shoe v. United Shoe Machinery Corp.
392 U.S. 481 (1968) Cited 791 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that an antitrust defendant could not argue that a plaintiff who had purchased a product directly from the defendant was not injured because it had passed on the illegal overcharge to its own customers, thus creating a regime under which plaintiffs can arguably recover more than "threefold the damages by him sustained"
In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litigation
391 F.3d 516 (3d Cir. 2004) Cited 666 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that TPPs had standing to assert antitrust claims because they suffered “direct and independent harm” as a result of paying supracompetitive prices for the defendant's drug regardless of any injury suffered by the consumer plaintiffs
Robidoux v. Celani
987 F.2d 931 (2d Cir. 1993) Cited 874 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that recipients of public assistance challenging delays by the Vermont Department of Social Welfare could proceed under the "inherently transitory" exception in part because "the Department will almost always be able to process a delayed application before a plaintiff can obtain relief through litigation"
Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc.
327 U.S. 251 (1946) Cited 978 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that when the plaintiff cannot prove his damages by precise computation, the jury "may make a just and reasonable estimate of the damage based on relevant data, and render its verdict accordingly"
Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals
350 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2003) Cited 436 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that the antitrust claims of disparate groups, distributors of vitamins and producers of end-products incorporating vitamins, could not be mixed together where the interests of the class representatives and some class members were " significantly different"
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,931 times 1234 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"

In Re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation

48 Cited authorities

Holding that certain merits questions “should not be resolved in deciding whether to certify a proposed class,” but are “properly addressed at trial or in a ruling on a summary-judgment motion”

Holding that defendants may seek to rebut the Basic presumption at the class certification stage through evidence that the misrepresentation had no price impact

Holding that, because the remand requirement is absolute, the transferee court may not invoke the change-of-venue statute to assign transferred cases to itself for trial

Holding that the term "reasonable attorney's fee" in 42 U.S.C. § 1988 does not provide the "explicit statutory authority" required to award expert witness fees beyond those provided by §§ 1920 and 1821

Holding that indirect purchasers cannot recover damages under federal antitrust law

Holding that TPPs had standing to assert antitrust claims because they suffered “direct and independent harm” as a result of paying supracompetitive prices for the defendant's drug regardless of any injury suffered by the consumer plaintiffs

Holding that when the plaintiff cannot prove his damages by precise computation, the jury "may make a just and reasonable estimate of the damage based on relevant data, and render its verdict accordingly"

Holding that the antitrust claims of disparate groups, distributors of vitamins and producers of end-products incorporating vitamins, could not be mixed together where the interests of the class representatives and some class members were " significantly different"

Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"