7 Cited authorities

IN RE FLAT GLASS ANTITRUST LITIGATION
385 F.3d 350 (3d Cir. 2004) Cited 350 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that evidence of parallel price increases shortly following information exchanges took the exchanges "outside the realm of 'mere possession'" and allowed for an inference of conspiracy
In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation
295 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2002) Cited 247 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that fixing a “list price” would constitute a per se antitrust violation even if the list price was only a “guide to likely transaction purchases”
In re Foundry Resins Antitrust Litigation
242 F.R.D. 393 (S.D. Ohio 2007) Cited 27 times
Considering "reply-memorandum modification" to class definition
Hill v. the Tribune Company
Nos. 05 C 2602, 05 C 2640, 05 C 2684, 05 C 2927, 05 C 3374, 05 C 3377, 05 C 3390, 05 C 3928 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 13, 2005) Cited 10 times
Finding certain PSLRA provisions inapposite in ERISA litigation
In re Delphi Erisa Litigation
230 F.R.D. 496 (E.D. Mich. 2005) Cited 9 times
Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Derek W. Loeser, Erin M. Riley, Tobias J. Kammer, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Seattle, WA, Lead Attorneys for the Class. Jeffrey T. Meyers (P34348), Morgan & Meyers PLC, Dearborn, MI, Liaison Counsel for the Class. OPINION AND ORDER: 1) CONSOLIDATING ERISA ACTIONS; 2)ADOPTING IN PART THE GLINKA GROUP'S AMENDED PRE-TRIAL ORDER; 3) GRANTING IN PART THE GLINKA GROUP'S AMENDED MOTION REGARDING ITS PROPOSED INTERIM LEADERSHIP STRUCTURE; AND 4) DENYING THE BREWER GROUP'S AND HANNER'S MOTIONS
Kroger Co. v. Sanofi-Aventis
701 F. Supp. 2d 938 (S.D. Ohio 2010) Cited 5 times 1 Legal Analyses
Dismissing a monopolization claim, premised on the theory that the defendant instituted sham litigation against its generic competitors, to preclude competition, for failing to allege that the lawsuits were "subjectively and objectively baseless"
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,849 times 1232 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"

Exhibit 10-Nowak v. Ford Motor Co., #

7 Cited authorities

IN RE FLAT GLASS ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Holding that evidence of parallel price increases shortly following information exchanges took the exchanges "outside the realm of 'mere possession'" and allowed for an inference of conspiracy

In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation

Holding that fixing a “list price” would constitute a per se antitrust violation even if the list price was only a “guide to likely transaction purchases”

In re Foundry Resins Antitrust Litigation

Considering "reply-memorandum modification" to class definition

Hill v. the Tribune Company

Finding certain PSLRA provisions inapposite in ERISA litigation

In re Delphi Erisa Litigation

Kroger Co. v. Sanofi-Aventis

Dismissing a monopolization claim, premised on the theory that the defendant instituted sham litigation against its generic competitors, to preclude competition, for failing to allege that the lawsuits were "subjectively and objectively baseless"

Rule 23 - Class Actions

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"