Attal v. Pennsylvania Railroad

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that defendants’ challenge to plaintiffs’ expert at the class certification stage was a matter to be resolved at trial because, although each sides’ expert “arrived at a polar opposing finding concerning common impact[,] ... significantly both employ single formulas”
• finding predominance for legal prong of antitrust injury met in an antitrust price fixing conspiracy by persons who paid supraeom-petitive prices
• noting “44 percent of Dr. Leitzinger’s estimates of the relationship between costs and prices are negative”
• according to expert analysis credited by the court, certain market factors “lay the groundwork for plaintiffs’ argument that, if collusive behavior did occur, it would have been effective in raising prices across the class, thus demonstrating class-wide injury-in-faet”
• “In essence, the defendants are asking the court to determine which regression model is most accurate, which is ultimately a merits decision.”
• “When assessing the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b) (3), ... [the Court] need only determine whether the element of injury-in-fact can be proven by evidence common to the class”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).