§Why CasetextPricing

"The Apple iPod iTunes Anti-Trust Litigation"

MOTION to Certify Class and MOTION to Appoint Class Counsel

77 Cited authorities

  1. Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor

    521 U.S. 591 (1997)   Cited 6,931 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts are "bound to enforce" Rule 23's certification requirements, even where it means decertifying a class after they had reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval

  2. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.

    504 U.S. 451 (1992)   Cited 2,285 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "it is clearly reasonable to infer that [the defendant] has market power to raise prices and drive out competition in the aftermarkets" for service and parts despite an undisputed lack of market power in the initial product

  3. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.

    150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 3,045 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " common nucleus of facts and potential legal remedies dominate[d]" over "idiosyncratic differences between state consumer protection laws" where a nationwide class of minivan buyers’ claims turned on "questions of [the manufacturer’s] prior knowledge of the [vehicle’s] deficiency, the design defect, and a damages remedy"

  4. Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan

    506 U.S. 447 (1993)   Cited 779 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that proof of relevant market is essential under § 2

  5. Reiter v. Sonotone Corp.

    442 U.S. 330 (1979)   Cited 1,156 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "injury to business or property" was not limited to commercial interests

  6. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.

    20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 2,417 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for an act to be "unfair," it must "threaten" a violation of law or "violate the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law"

  7. Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde

    466 U.S. 2 (1984)   Cited 802 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "any inquiry into the validity of a tying arrangement must focus on the market or markets in which the two products are sold, for that is where the anticompetitive forcing has its impact"

  8. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. United States

    356 U.S. 1 (1958)   Cited 1,395 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding market power based on the uniqueness of the owned land

  9. Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp.

    976 F.2d 497 (9th Cir. 1992)   Cited 1,610 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendants' statements emphasizing superior quality were material because "a reasonable jury could conclude that [the company] publicly released optimistic statements ... when it knew [its product] could not be built reliably"

  10. Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc.

    547 U.S. 28 (2006)   Cited 231 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that separate markets existed for software and hardware even when they were always bundled together

  11. Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200   Cited 17,790 times   315 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting unlawful business practices

  12. Section 26 - Injunctive relief for private parties; exception; costs

    15 U.S.C. § 26   Cited 1,448 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing injunctive relief against "threatened loss or damage by a violation of the antitrust laws"

  13. Section 16720 - Trust

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16720   Cited 422 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting any combination to prevent competition in the "sale or purchase of any commodity"

  14. Section 3 - Tenure of officeholders

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 3   Cited 38 times
    Commencing with [Insurance Code] section 1631