In Re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation

How courts have described this case

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

• “Agree[ing] with 11 defendants that [plaintiff] must specify the state laws under which it is asserting claims 12 for unjust enrichment.”
• “Several other 25 courts in this district have similarly held that a plaintiff must specify the state under which it 26 brings an unjust enrichment claim.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In re Nexus 6P Prods. Liab. Litig.
  N.D. California· 2018-03-05· cited 65×
• Augustine v. Talking Rain Beverage Co.
  S.D. California· 2019-04-12· cited 17×
• Blue Cross of Cal. Inc. v. Insys Therapeutics Inc.
  D. Arizona· 2019-05-14· cited 7×

Cites

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

• Ashcroft v. Iqbal
  Supreme Court· 2009-05-18· cited 149,772×
• Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
  Supreme Court· 2007-05-21· cited 146,720×
• Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America
  Supreme Court· 1994-05-16· cited 12,961×
• Lopez v. Smith
  Ninth Circuit· 2000-02-10· cited 9,722×
• Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.
  Supreme Court· 1941-06-02· cited 8,668×
• In Re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation
  Ninth Circuit· 2008-08-11· cited 1,361×
• Sterling Usher v. City of Los Angeles, Richard A. Gonzales, Michael E. Melton, Jose E. Ramirez, Joe Rios, and Robert L. Vann
  Ninth Circuit· 1987-09-21· cited 1,059×
• Thornhill Publishing Company, Inc. v. General Telephone & Electronics Corporation
  Ninth Circuit· 1979-03-22· cited 514×
• Fortune Production Co. v. Conoco, Inc.
  Texas Supreme Court· 2000-11-30· cited 433×
• IDT Corp. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.
  New York Court of Appeals· 2009-03-26· cited 370×
• Nedlloyd Lines B v. v. Superior Court
  California Supreme Court· 1992-08-31· cited 363×
• Roberts v. Corrothers
  Ninth Circuit· 1987-03-16· cited 302×
• F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S. A.
  Supreme Court· 2004-06-14· cited 212×
• Amado Miranda, an Individual Esperanza Miranda, an Individual v. Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States of America Does 1-100
  Ninth Circuit· 2001-02-07· cited 138×
• In Re Dynamic Random Access Memory (Dram)
  Ninth Circuit· 2008-10-09· cited 129×
• Hatfield v. Halifax PLC & HBOS PLC
  Ninth Circuit· 2009-05-08· cited 65×
• Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.
  Eleventh Circuit· 1987-02-23· cited 47×
• In Re Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litigation
  N.D. California· 2008-02-14· cited 40×
• In Re Ditropan XL Antitrust Litigation
  N.D. California· 2007-05-11· cited 37×
• Empagran S.A. v. F. Hoffmann-Laroche, Ltd.
  D.C. Circuit· 2005-06-28· cited 30×