In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor · Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes · Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes · 133 S. Ct. 1426 - Comcast Corp. v. Behrend · Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘[T]he failure to investigate the effect of the eggs from non-defendants on the prices of egg products weighs against a finding that the conspiracy would have had a common impact on the members of the putative subclass, [because] non-conspiring producers might price their products differently than conspirators, [and these differences might be reflected] in the prices of egg products, even if sold by Defendants, meaning that certain subclass members might not have experienced an impact as a result of the conspiracy.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.