Boone v. Coe

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that claim under MCPA was valid, in part because “the End Payors’ complaint pleads with particularity that Reckitt employed fraudulent and deceptive means with the intent to deceive”
• finding that plaintiffs sufficiently established an intrastate nexus for a consumer protection claim under California law, where plaintiffs alleged that some overcharges for drugs occurred in California
• finding that end payors could seek injunctive relief for ongoing inflated prices
• determining similar intrastate effects allegations were sufficient to permit the plaintiffs' Mississippi and Nevada antitrust claims to withstand dismissal
• finding that monopolization claims are actionable under Nevada's consumer protection law
• denying motion to dismiss where, allegedly, the brand manufacturer announced it had removed the established drug formulation in connection with “raising false safety concerns and disparaging” the product

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).