In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation

How courts have described this case

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

• upholding the Special Master’s conclusion that interview memoranda “were largely, if not wholly, fact work product based on the parties’ own description of the materials as counsel’s attempts to record questions and responses as accurately and completely as possible”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2006-09-05· cited 36×
• Cobell v. Norton
  D.C. Circuit· 2003-02-05· cited 26×
• Steptoe & Johnson LLP v. UBS AG
  District of Columbia· 2008-04-29· cited 13×
• Federal Trade Commission v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
  District of Columbia· 2012-09-27· cited 8×
• Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp.
  D. Delaware· 2008-06-04· cited 2×
• Cobell v. Norton
  District of Columbia· 2003-04-11

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Upjohn Co. v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1981-01-13· cited 3,227×
• In Re Sealed Case
  D.C. Circuit· 1982-04-23· cited 426×
• In Re: Sealed Case
  D.C. Circuit· 1997-08-29· cited 30×
• D. M. W. Contracting Co. v. Stolz
  D.C. Circuit· 1946-12-09· cited 26×
• Washington Bancorporation v. Said
  District of Columbia· 1992-11-03· cited 15×
• Hartman v. Duffey
  District of Columbia· 1997-08-04· cited 6×