363 F. Supp. 2d 1203 - In Re Tableware Antitrust Litigation’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “]. 9 The plaintiffs point to the holdings of various district courts that have recently reached similar conclusions See In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 363 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1206 (N.D.Cal.2005) (noting that "[i]n considering whether a complaint provides insufficient factual support for a legally viable theory of relief, a useful thought experiment is to ask `what [the] plaintiff [could] plead in an amended complaint to repair the defect,'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp.

2. “`when [the conspiracy] conversations took place, how many occurred, who participated, where the conversations took place, [and] what topics were discussed' as well as . . . `meeting dates,' `meeting places' and [names of] `individuals employed by . . . [d]efendants who allegedly participated'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp.

3. “plaintiffs need not plead a relevant market (as they would need to do for a section 2 claim), nor do they need to plead the harm to competition, something which is presumed in a per se case”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jain Irrigation, Inc. v. Netafim Irrigation, Inc.