§Why CasetextPricing

Meijer, Inc. et al v. Abbott Laboratories

Reply Memorandum re MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1292

25 Cited authorities

  1. Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown Williamson Tobacco Corp.

    509 U.S. 209 (1993)   Cited 728 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "tacit collusion" of participants in oligopolistic market to raise prices in response to higher costs is "not in itself unlawful"

  2. Ahrenholz v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

    219 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2000)   Cited 590 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "question of law" under § 1292(b) "means an abstract legal issue rather than an issue of whether summary judgment should be granted"

  3. Rebel Oil Co., Inc. v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

    51 F.3d 1421 (9th Cir. 1995)   Cited 482 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence of entry barriers and market share is not sufficient to demonstrate market power when existing competitors are able to expand capacity

  4. Palmer v. Sanderson

    9 F.3d 1433 (9th Cir. 1993)   Cited 502 times
    Holding that officer who fastened handcuffs so tightly around plaintiff's wrist that it caused pain and left bruises for weeks was not entitled to qualified immunity

  5. In re Cement Antitr. Litigation

    673 F.2d 1020 (9th Cir. 1981)   Cited 630 times
    Holding that interlocutory appeal is only justified under "exceptional circumstances."

  6. Lepage's Inc. v. 3M

    324 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2003)   Cited 219 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court should consider a defendant's anticompetitive conduct "as a whole rather than considering each aspect in isolation"

  7. Cascade Health v. Peacehealth

    515 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 171 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in the normal case, above-cost pricing will not be considered exclusionary conduct

  8. Image Tech. Services, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak

    125 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 1997)   Cited 215 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a litigant's summary judgment motion does not satisfy the requirement for a motion for JMOL at the close of the evidence

  9. Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. United Airlines, Inc.

    948 F.2d 536 (9th Cir. 1991)   Cited 141 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting the doctrine

  10. Cost Management Services v. Washington Nat. Gas

    99 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 107 times
    Holding that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction did not apply to the question of whether a defendant violated a tariff because that question "must necessarily be resolved in favor of" the plaintiff on a motion to dismiss

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,946 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 1292 - Interlocutory decisions

    28 U.S.C. § 1292   Cited 22,315 times   193 Legal Analyses
    Granting appellate jurisdiction over the denial of an injunction