In re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litigation’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1407
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon · Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“These overwhelming disparities defeat typicality. The representative plaintiffs simply do not have the appropriate incentive to establish antitrust violations with respect to all of the absent class members. To prove their claims, the named plaintiffs will have to show that the list prices that they paid for their graphics cards were artificially inflated by defendants. Proof that defendants conspired to fix those prices would hardly prove that defendants also conspired to fix the non-list prices for the transactions entered into with absent wholesale purchasers.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“) ("[I]n order to satisfy Section 4 of the Clayton Act, plaintiffs must demonstrate that they paid a higher price for their graphics card or computer than they otherwise would have paid in the absence of a 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.