In Re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 45 (§ 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters · American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah · Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois · Reiter v. Sonotone Corp.
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.
“• Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings based on preemption principles is DENIED ; • Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings based on statute of limitations is DENIED ; • Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to EPPs' state consumer protection claims in California, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, and North Carolina is DENIED . • Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as it pertains to EPPs' Arizona, Nevada, and Utah antitrust claims is GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE ; EPPs are granted leave to amend their Complaint to plead compliance with these notice provisions and, with regards to Utah, include a named plaintiff from Utah; • Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as it pertains to EPPs' antitrust claims under the laws of the District of Columbia is GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE ; • Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as it pertains to EPPs' Massachusetts, West Virginia, Rhode Island, and Tennessee consumer protection claims is GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE ; EPPs are granted leave to amend their Complaint to plead compliance with Massachusetts and West Virginia's notice provisions, individual claims in Tennessee, and consumer claims under Rhode Island; • Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as it pertains to EPPs' Illinois and Rhode Island antitrust claims, and EPPs' Illinois and Maine consumer protection claims is GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE ; • Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Count I of EPP”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM I) Antitrust Litig. , 516 F.Supp.2d 1072 , 1117 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (citing ERI Max Entm't, Inc. v. Streisand , 690 A.2d 1351 , 1354 (R.I. 1997) ); see also TFT-LCD , 586 F.Supp.2d at 1130 (same); Sheet Metal Workers , 737 F.Supp.2d at 423 (same). As such, Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the Rhode Island Supreme Court has construed the [Rhode Island Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act]to require that only natural persons are permitted to bring private rights of actions under the statute.”
3 later decisions 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.