540 F. Supp. 2d 1085 - In Re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litigation’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “[N]o state court in New Mexico or West Virginia has reached the question of whether AGC applies. Both of those states have harmonization provisions, or statutes that require or urge that state antitrust statutes should be interpreted consistent with federal antitrust precedent. Not all such statutes are equivalent in language or in application, and defendants do not argue how much those statutes require in terms of har monization. Absent clearer directive from the courts and legislatures of those states, this order declines to hold that AGC is the laws of those states at this time. Finally, defendants also acknowledge that the antitrust statutes of Mississippi, Kansas, and Tennessee do not contain harmonization provisions. The “favorable citations” and references to federal antitrust standing are not sufficient to mandate that the AGC test applies.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 586 F. Supp. 2d 1109 - In Re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation

2. “Rule 15(a) does not apply when, as here, the 'district court has established a deadline for amended pleadings under FRCP 16(b),'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 333 F. Supp. 3d 817 - Baldwin v. Estherville