Arbuckle Wilderness, Inc. v. KFOR-TV, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting defendants’ argument that generalized proof could not be used to prove impact in a vertical antitrust conspiracy claim
• “the impact element of an antitrust cause of action is the key to class determination”
• the court examines “what type of proof’ is available to support the class proponents’ claims
• proof of consciously parallel business conduct by defendants is circumstantial evidence from which a conspiracy, tacit or express, can be inferred
• “That Defendants’ expert disagrees with the methodologies and conclusions propounded by [plaintiffs’ expert] is no reason to deny class certification. Whether or not plaintiffs will be successful in persuading the jury that there has been a common impact remains to be seen.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).