In Re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litigation

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “it is understood, if not presumed, that appellate courts will act with cognizance” of the concerns associated with interlocutory appeals
• holding that “review is limited to issues that relate to class certification”
• holding 13 in an antitrust class action that “[u]nlike constitutional 14 standing, this court’s jurisdiction does not turn on antitrust 15 standing”
• justifying “manifestly erroneous” Rule 23(f) ground for review “to avoid a lengthy and costly trial that is for naught once the final judgment is appealed”
• rejecting challenge to district court’s factual findings and noting that district court could further refine the class as additional facts came to light
• “[J]urisdiction does not turn on antitrust standing.” (citing Assoc. Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc., 459 U.S. at 535 n.31)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).