E.D. Illinois· 1/25/2019
In re Dealer Management Systems Antitrust Litigation
Citations
- 362 F. Supp. 3d 510
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- dismissing the plaintiffs' Tennessee antitrust law claim where they had \not identified any Tennessee-specific allegations supporting [their] claim\
- rejecting antitrust defendants’ claim that plaintiffs are precluded from pursuing a class action under consumer protection statutes of various states
- rejecting antitrust defendants’ claim that plaintiffs are precluded from pursuing a class action under consumer protection statutes of various states
- rejecting antitrust defendants’ claim that plaintiffs are precluded from pursuing a class action under consumer protection statutes of various states
- “Even if Justice Stevens’s plurality opinion applied, Defendant has not identified any authority for concluding that the class action bars at issue are so intertwined with a state-created right or remedy as to justify finding that it trumps Rule 23 . . . .”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Dow
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
99 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court· 2009-05-18· cited 149,772×
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court· 2007-05-21· cited 146,720×
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court· 1986-03-26· cited 58,760×
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court· 1957-11-18· cited 30,380×
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court· 1938-04-25· cited 18,491×
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court· 1983-02-23· cited 9,657×
- United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co.Supreme Court· 1960-06-20· cited 5,791×
- At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications WorkersSupreme Court· 1986-04-07· cited 4,474×
- Bell v. HoodSupreme Court· 1946-04-01· cited 4,157×
- Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of CarpentersSupreme Court· 1983-02-22· cited 3,116×
- Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.Supreme Court· 1989-03-06· cited 2,861×
- Brown Shoe Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1962-06-25· cited 1,936×
- Illinois Brick Co. v. IllinoisSupreme Court· 1977-10-03· cited 1,382×
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Concentra Health Services, Inc.Seventh Circuit· 2007-08-03· cited 1,068×
- Arthur Andersen LLP v. CarlisleSupreme Court· 2009-05-04· cited 968×
- Roland MacHinery Company v. Dresser Industries, Inc.Seventh Circuit· 1984-12-21· cited 828×
- Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc.Supreme Court· 1986-12-09· cited 721×
- In Re Tobacco II CasesCalifornia Supreme Court· 2009-05-18· cited 705×
- Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal.Supreme Court· 1972-03-01· cited 658×
- Tampa Electric Co. v. Nashville Coal Co.Supreme Court· 1961-02-27· cited 623×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.