In re Tableware Antitrust Litigation

How courts have described this case

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

• “Because class 25 representatives serve as a guardian of the interests of the class, the representatives must have some minimal familiarity with the litigation, although a detailed understanding of the 26 theories and facts of the case is not required.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Chavez v. Blue Sky Natural Beverage Co.
  N.D. California· 2010-06-18· cited 55×
• Kanawi v. Bechtel Corp.
  N.D. California· 2008-10-10· cited 36×
• Ross v. American Express Co.
  S.D. New York· 2010-01-22· cited 31×
• In re Live Concert Antitrust Litigation
  C.D. California· 2007-10-22· cited 22×
• In re Ready-Mixed Concrete Antitrust Litigation
  S.D. Indiana· 2009-09-09· cited 15×
• O'Donovan v. CashCall, Inc.
  N.D. California· 2011-11-15· cited 6×
• In re Aftermarket Automotive Lighting Products Antitrust Litigation
  C.D. California· 2011-07-25· cited 5×

Cites

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

• Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor
  Supreme Court· 1997-06-25· cited 4,991×
• Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin
  Supreme Court· 1974-05-28· cited 3,301×
• Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.
  Ninth Circuit· 1998-06-09· cited 1,381×
• David Hanon v. Dataproducts Corporation Jack C. Davis
  Ninth Circuit· 1992-09-28· cited 950×
• Blackie v. Barrack
  Ninth Circuit· 1975-09-25· cited 871×
• Eisenberg v. Gagnon
  Third Circuit· 1985-06-28· cited 452×
• Armstrong v. Davis
  Ninth Circuit· 2001-11-28· cited 428×
• Elsie Simer v. Richard J. Rios, Acting Director of Community Services Administration Community Services Administration
  Seventh Circuit· 1981-10-07· cited 307×
• Walters v. Reno
  Ninth Circuit· 1998-05-18· cited 215×
• M. D. Rutledge v. Electric Hose & Rubber Company
  Ninth Circuit· 1975-03-03· cited 145×
• O'Connor v. Boeing North American, Inc.
  C.D. California· 1998-07-13· cited 106×
• Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc.
  Ninth Circuit· 2001-06-15· cited 103×
• Romero v. Producers Dairy Foods, Inc.
  E.D. California· 2006-04-19· cited 54×
• In Re Playmobil Antitrust Litigation
  E.D. New York· 1998-12-30· cited 53×
• In re Master Key Antitrust Litigation
  D. Connecticut· 1975-05-27· cited 47×
• Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. v. Smith
  E.D. Michigan· 1997-03-31· cited 37×
• Burkhalter Travel Agency v. MacFarms International, Inc.
  N.D. California· 1991-12-09· cited 35×
• In re Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Litigation
  N.D. California· 2005-10-06· cited 27×
• Loeb Industrial, Inc. v. Sumitomo Corp.
  W.D. Wisconsin· 2000-08-24· cited 24×
• Brown v. Pro Football, Inc.
  D.C. Circuit· 1992-09-11· cited 19×