Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Public Limited Company et al
REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION to Exclude, 249 MOTION to Exclude / Warner Chilcott's Motion to Exclude the Declaration and Testimony of Expert Jeffrey Leitzinger [Redacted Public Version] re / Defendant Warner Chilcott' Reply in Support of Its Motion to Exclude the Declaration and Testimony of Jeffrey Leitzinger [Public Redacted Version] re REPLY
564 U.S. 338 (2011) Cited 6,803 times 508 Legal Analyses
Holding in Rule 23 context that “[w]ithout some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims for relief will produce a common answer”
Holding that an expert witness is prohibited from rendering a legal opinion because it would usurp the District Court's pivotal role in explaining the law to the jury
392 U.S. 481 (1968) Cited 792 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"
Holding that a "prime occasion for Rule 23(f)" appellate review is when class certification "puts a bet-your-company decision to [defendant's] managers and may induce a substantial settlement even if the [plaintiffs'] position is weak"
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 35,653 times 1242 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"