In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon · Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · Califano v. Yamasaki
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the Court need not concern itself with whether Plaintiffs can prove their allegations regarding common impact; the Court need only assure itself that Plaintiffs' attempt to prove their allegations will predominantly involve common issues of fact and law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“10 The district court concluded that the putative classes met the requirements of Rule 23(a) and noted that: 11 there is an overlap between the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) and the prerequisite of Rule 23(a)(2) that common questions exist.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Dr. Beyer stated that he would estimate linerboard prices that would have existed absent the conspiracy based on an analysis of linerboard pricing behavior during a more competitive period of time, either before or after the conspiracy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.