In re Industrial Diamonds Antitrust Litigation

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting showing of predominance because the court “would be required to scrutinize each transaction to ascertain whether the purchaser paid a supracompetitive price”
• \whether defendants actively concealed the alleged conspiracy clearly presents common questions of law and fact\
• “Common proof of impact is not possible, however, on behalf of those purchasers who bought non-list price products.”
• “we are persuaded that, despite the wide range of products and prices involved, common proof of impact is possible on behalf of purchasers who bought list-price products”
• “We need not consider [expert's affidavit] in detail, as it is for the jury to evaluate this conflicting evidence and to determine what weight to give the expert’s conclusions.”
• “Courts have routinely held, however, that the need for individualized determinations of the putative class members’ damages do not, without more, preclude certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(3).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

52 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Cordes & Co. Financial Services v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.
  Second Circuit· 2007-09-11· cited 215×
• Lum v. Bank of America
  Third Circuit· 2004-03-11· cited 172×
• In Re Milk Products Antitrust Litigation. Rainy Lake One Stop, Inc.
  Eighth Circuit· 1999-11-15· cited 156×
• Unnamed case
  Third Circuit· 2002-09-05· cited 138×
• In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation
  E.D. Michigan· 2001-03-14· cited 80×
• Lum v. Bank of America
  First Circuit· 2004-03-11· cited 71×
• In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2001-09-04· cited 57×
• In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation
  E.D. Michigan· 2001-04-03· cited 44×
• Seeco, Inc. v. Hales
  Supreme Court of Arkansas· 1997-10-30· cited 43×
• Masquat v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
  Supreme Court of Oklahoma· 2008-07-01· cited 43×
• In Re Industrial Diamonds Antitrust Litigation
  S.D. New York· 2000-11-01· cited 36×
• In re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litigation
  N.D. California· 2008-07-18· cited 35×
• In Re RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
  District of Columbia· 2012-07-13· cited 32×
• In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation
  N.D. California· 2010-03-28· cited 32×
• In re Universal Service Fund Telephone Billing Practices Litigation
  D. Kansas· 2004-02-13· cited 31×
• Ross v. American Express Co.
  S.D. New York· 2010-01-22· cited 31×
• In re Buspirone Patent Litigation
  S.D. New York· 2002-08-19· cited 30×
• In re Polypropylene Carpet Antitrust Litigation
  N.D. Georgia· 1997-06-02· cited 30×
• In re Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Anti-Trust Litigation
  D. Maine· 2003-06-13· cited 29×
• In re Auction Houses Antitrust Litigation
  S.D. New York· 2000-04-20· cited 27×

Other cases named In re Industrial Diamonds Antitrust Litigation

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• In Re Industrial Diamonds Antitrust Litigation
  S.D. New York· 2000-11-01· cited 36×