Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigration Rights v. Regents of the University of Michigan

How courts have described this case

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

• noting, inter alia, a statement to the effect that “we have competition on board for the- Oct 1 price increase announcement”
• crediting the parties’ position that “a credible punishment mechanism to penalize cheaters is an important component of a cartel”
• stating that, to establish a per se antitrust violation, plaintiffs must show “(1) the existence of an agreement, combination, or conspiracy, (2) among actual competitors, (3) with the purpose or effect of raising, depressing, fixing, pegging, or stabilizing the price of a commodity, (4
• denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment where third- party consultant was alleged to directly siphon anticompetitive information between defendants – regarding, for example, their relative inventory and pricing levels
• denying summary judgment when all five defendants participated in all 25 price increases during the alleged conspiracy périod, with the longest gap between the initial price hike and the subsequent increase being, as far as the Court can tell, 20 days
• discussing an “industry consultant” serving as a “conduit”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).