§Why CasetextPricing

In Re: Aftermarket Filters Antitrust Litigation

REPLY

22 Cited authorities

  1. Pisciotta v. Old National Bancorp

    499 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2007)   Cited 764 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, under Indiana state law, "allegations of increased risk of future identity theft . . . [are not] a harm that the law is prepared to remedy"

  2. Sperry v. Crompton Corp.

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 1425 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 260 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the connection between the purchaser of tires and the producers of chemicals used in the rubbermaking process is simply too attenuated to support" the purchaser's claim of unjust enrichment

  3. In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation

    338 F. Supp. 2d 517 (D.N.J. 2004)   Cited 188 times
    Holding that plaintiffs' receipt of medicine of some value did not bar an unjust enrichment claim

  4. In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation

    586 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (N.D. Cal. 2008)   Cited 116 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the District of Columbia's consumer protection statute is a "comprehensive statute designed to provide procedures and remedies for a broad spectrum of practices which injure consumers", and thus, the plaintiffs could maintain a claim for price fixing (quoting Atwater v. District of Columbia Dep't of Consumer & Reg. Affairs, 566 A.2d 462, 465 (D.C. 1989) )

  5. Booe v. Shadrick

    322 N.C. 567 (N.C. 1988)   Cited 199 times
    Holding that "A quasi-contract or a contract implied in law is not a contract . . . [i]f there is a contract between the parties the contract governs the claim . . ."

  6. Kammer Asphalt Paving Co. v. East China Township Schools

    443 Mich. 176 (Mich. 1993)   Cited 169 times
    Finding unjust enrichment where the defendant and the plaintiff were in direct contact with one another while the plaintiff performed work at facilities owned by the defendant and the facts clearly show that the defendant benefited directly from the plaintiff's work

  7. In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation

    105 F. Supp. 2d 618 (E.D. Mich. 2000)   Cited 102 times
    Holding that intrastate effect sufficiently alleged where anticompetitive conduct may have occurred outside the state but the product affected by the anticompetitive conduct came to rest in Tennessee causing injury to citizens who purchased the product at artificially inflated prices as a result of defendant's conduct

  8. Haz-Mat Response, Inc. v. Certified Waste Services Ltd.

    259 Kan. 166 (Kan. 1996)   Cited 111 times
    Defining unjust enrichment elements

  9. In re Dynamic Random Access Memory Antitrust Litigation

    536 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (N.D. Cal. 2008)   Cited 76 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a claim under New York's consumer protection statute "should be assessed with reference to AGC factors"

  10. In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Products Liability Lit.

    175 F. Supp. 2d 593 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)   Cited 85 times
    Holding that state lawsuits about MTBE contamination "concern[ed] groundwater contamination" and were " not brought for purposes of regulating motor vehicle emissions control"

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 345,715 times   922 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss