American Copper & Brass, Inc. v. Lake City Industrial Products, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that, especially at the class certification stage, expert testimony that defendant transmitted the fax to the plaintiff is sufficient
• affirming a district court’s certification of a class in a TCPA case where the plaintiff utilized Biggerstaff’s expertise
• class members who were “successfully sent” a fax from distributor, even in absence of evidence of receipt, had standing
• “We agree with the district court’s conclusion that MCR 3.501(A)(5) does not apply in this case.”
• “The general rule, of course, is that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ... apply to all civil cases brought in federal courts.”
• in affirming grant of class certification and summary judgment, noting that defendant’s argument that the transmission data analyzed by Biggerstaff could be erroneous is “wholly speculative”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).