Commonwealth Ex Rel. Pappert v. TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that question of whether plaintiff should have known the AWP was not reliable “requires further factual exploration”
• noting that, under Pennsylvania law, “plaintiffs who base a claim of fraud on a non-disclosure must plead facts showing that the defendant had a duty to disclose”
• finding that an increase in the market share of the defendants' prescription drugs resulting from inflated reimbursements issued by the plaintiff as a result of defendants' pricing scheme were sufficient to support an unjust enrichment claim
• Torchia v. Torchia, 346 Pa. Super. 229, 499 A.2d 581 (1985)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).