In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation

How courts have described this case

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

• “The common interest binding parties to the communication must be legal in nature, and not merely commercial or business related.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2012-07-16· cited 5×
• Cottillion v. United Refining Co.
  W.D. Pennsylvania· 2011-12-21· cited 4×

Cites

22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Hickman v. Taylor
  Supreme Court· 1947-01-13· cited 4,981×
• Upjohn Co. v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1981-01-13· cited 3,227×
• Fisher v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1976-04-21· cited 2,033×
• United States v. Nobles
  Supreme Court· 1975-06-23· cited 1,718×
• In Re Teleglobe Communications Corp.
  Third Circuit· 2007-07-17· cited 285×
• In Re Ford Motor Company
  Third Circuit· 1997-05-02· cited 283×
• United States v. BDO Seidman, LLP
  Seventh Circuit· 2007-07-02· cited 138×
• In Re: Cendant Corporation Securities Litigation Ernst & Young LLP
  Third Circuit· 2003-09-16· cited 134×
• In the Matter of Grand Jury Empanelled February 14, 1978. Appeal of Nathan Markowitz
  Third Circuit· 1979-07-23· cited 98×
• Energy Mgt. P 26,389 Conoco Inc., a Delaware Corporation v. United States Department of Justice. Conoco Inc. v. United States Department of Energy
  Third Circuit· 1982-08-25· cited 89×
• Lynn Martin, Secretary of Labor v. Bally's Park Place Hotel & Casino and Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission
  Third Circuit· 1993-02-12· cited 89×
• Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc.
  Third Circuit· 2007-04-02· cited 74×
• United States of America and Kenneth J. Kalemba, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service v. Amerada Hess Corporation
  Third Circuit· 1980-01-18· cited 65×
• In Re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2011-09-26· cited 40×
• In Re Chevron Corp.
  Third Circuit· 2011-05-25· cited 32×
• Robinson v. Texas Automobile Dealers Ass'n
  E.D. Texas· 2003-03-28· cited 24×
• In Re RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
  District of Columbia· 2010-06-07· cited 13×
• Hydramar, Inc. v. General Dynamics Corp.
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 1986-09-22· cited 13×
• United States v. LeCroy
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2005-01-10· cited 7×
• Faloney v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2008-06-25· cited 6×