§Why CasetextPricing

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

46 Cited authorities

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    509 U.S. 579 (1993)   Cited 26,290 times   225 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"

  2. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes

    564 U.S. 338 (2011)   Cited 6,637 times   505 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”

  3. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael

    526 U.S. 137 (1999)   Cited 12,614 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Daubert gatekeeping standard applies not only to "scientific testimony" but also to "all expert testimony"

  4. General Electric Co. v. Joiner

    522 U.S. 136 (1997)   Cited 4,862 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under the abuse of discretion standard the appellate court will not reverse unless the ruling is manifestly erroneous

  5. Comcast Corp. v. Behrend

    569 U.S. 27 (2013)   Cited 2,232 times   232 Legal Analyses
    Holding that at the class certification stage, "any model supporting a plaintiff's damages case must be consistent with its liability case"

  6. 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

  7. Berckeley Inv. Group, Ltd. v. Colkitt

    455 F.3d 195 (3d Cir. 2006)   Cited 1,225 times
    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

  8. In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig.

    552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2008)   Cited 908 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs must make more than a mere " threshold showing," they must establish facts " by the preponderance of the evidence"

  9. 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"

  10. Szabo v. Bridgeport Machines, Inc.

    249 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2001)   Cited 886 times   6 Legal Analyses
    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"

  11. 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"

  12. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 26,664 times   255 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard

  13. Rule 403 - Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons

    Fed. R. Evid. 403   Cited 22,522 times   81 Legal Analyses
    Adopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks