Carter v. Eyman

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiffs’ damages model “survive[d] the minimal scrutiny required” at the certification stage although the expert had not yet “adjust[ed] for any confounding news”
• concluding that “[p]rice maintenance fit[] the theory of plaintiffs’ case,” where defendants’ material omissions maintained inflation in stock price and there was no reactionary price impact
• collecting cases and noting that “courts have found market efficiency in the absence of an event study or where the event study was not definitive”
• refusing to exclude event study, concluding that arguments as to the construct of the event study “go to the weight, not the sufficiency of the evidence”
• rejecting defendants Daubert argument that plaintiff’s expert improperly “plod[ded] through” the Cammer and Krogman factors as “pointless” because those factors are “widely accepted” as relevant to market efficiency
• rejecting Comcast challenge to damages model where plaintiffs’ model allegedly did not explain, among other things, why plaintiffs’ chosen timeframe was “an appropriate starting point for calculating damages”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).