N.D. California· 3/3/2009
In Re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation
Citations
- 599 F. Supp. 2d 1179
- 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23240
- 2009 WL 522903
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that plaintiffs could not \circumvent the restrictions on antitrust claims under Arkansas ... law by reframing those claims as unjust enrichment actions\
- recognizing that “a number of cases ... stand for th[e] general proposition” that indirect purchasers “may not circumvent the restrictions on antitrust claims under [certain states] by reframing those claims as unjust enrichment actions”
- noting that even complex consolidated antitrust litigation does not require “elaborate fact pleading”
- following Booe’s articulation of an unjust enrichment claim in lieu of Effler and recognizing that Booe “did not ... require that a benefit be direct to state an unjust enrichment claim”
- “Contrary to plaintiffs’ suggestion, the Cardizem court did not hold that indirect purchaser plaintiffs who lacked standing under a state antitrust statute could repackage that claim as an unjust enrichment claim.”
- “Contrary to plaintiffs’ suggestion, the Cardizem court did not hold that indirect purchaser plaintiffs who lacked standing under a state antitrust statute could repackage that claim as an unjust enrichment claim.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Susan Illston
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- In Re Digital Music Antitrust LitigationS.D. New York· 2011-07-18· cited 64×
- In re Niaspan Antitrust LitigationE.D. Pennsylvania· 2014-09-05· cited 62×
- In re Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust LitigationS.D. California· 2017-03-14· cited 48×
- In Re Potash Antitrust LitigationN.D. Illinois· 2009-11-03· cited 46×
- In re Aggrenox Antitrust LitigationD. Connecticut· 2015-03-23· cited 46×
- In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust LitigationE.D. Pennsylvania· 2012-03-20· cited 45×
- In re NexiumD. Massachusetts· 2013-09-11· cited 43×
- United Food & Commercial Workers Local 1776 v. Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc.N.D. California· 2014-11-17· cited 29×
- In re EpipenD. Kansas· 2018-08-20· cited 25×
- In re Opana ER Antritrust LitigationN.D. Illinois· 2016-02-10· cited 21×
- In Re Urethane Antitrust LitigationD. Kansas· 2009-08-14· cited 19×
- In Re Packaged Ice Antitrust LitigationE.D. Michigan· 2010-07-01· cited 19×
- In Re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust LitigationN.D. California· 2010-03-30· cited 17×
- GEICO Corp. v. Autoliv, Inc.E.D. Michigan· 2018-08-30· cited 16×
- Fenerjian v. Nongshim Co.N.D. California· 2014-11-04· cited 13×
- In re Lidoderm Antitrust LitigationN.D. California· 2015-05-05· cited 12×
- In re Fresh & Process Potatoes Antitrust LitigationD. Idaho· 2011-12-02· cited 11×
- Sheet Metal Workers Local 441 Health & Welfare Plan v. GlaxoSmithKline, PLCE.D. Pennsylvania· 2009-11-02· cited 10×
- Dang v. San Francisco Forty NinersN.D. California· 2013-08-02· cited 6×
- Carpenter Co. v. BASF SED. Kansas· 2009-08-14· cited 1×
Cites
24 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court· 2007-05-21· cited 146,720×
- Jena Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department Al Olsen, Police Chief, Individually and as a Police AgentNinth Circuit· 1990-05-11· cited 5,771×
- Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.Supreme Court· 1962-02-19· cited 2,575×
- Nl Industries, Inc. v. Stuart M. KaplanNinth Circuit· 1986-06-20· cited 487×
- Freeman Industries, LLC v. Eastman Chemical Co.Tennessee Supreme Court· 2005-08-25· cited 244×
- Morris Pumps v. Centerline Piping, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals· 2007-03-14· cited 209×
- Kammer Asphalt Paving Co. v. East China Township SchoolsMichigan Supreme Court· 1993-08-03· cited 145×
- Mladinich v. KohnMississippi Supreme Court· 1964-06-01· cited 93×
- In Re Intel Corp. Microprocessor Antitrust Lit.D. Delaware· 2007-07-12· cited 78×
- In Re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust LitigationN.D. California· 2008-08-25· cited 66×
- In Re Cardizem CD Antitrust LitigationE.D. Michigan· 2000-05-11· cited 66×
- In Re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust LitigationD. Maine· 2004-12-08· cited 62×
- In Re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust LitigationN.D. California· 2007-09-27· cited 62×
- Comes v. Microsoft Corp.Supreme Court of Iowa· 2002-06-12· cited 60×
- Federal Trade Commission v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc.District of Columbia· 1999-07-07· cited 47×
- Arroyo-Melecio v. Puerto Rican American InsuranceFirst Circuit· 2005-02-14· cited 44×
- In Re Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust LitigationN.D. California· 2008-02-14· cited 40×
- Apache Corp. v. MDU Resources Group, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court· 1999-12-28· cited 37×
- D.R. Ward Construction Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co.E.D. Pennsylvania· 2006-05-30· cited 27×
- California v. Infineon Technologies AGN.D. California· 2007-08-31· cited 23×
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.