Jackson v. Seedco's LBDO

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting showing of predominance because the court “would be required to scrutinize each transaction to ascertain whether the purchaser paid a supracompetitive price”
• \whether defendants actively concealed the alleged conspiracy clearly presents common questions of law and fact\
• “Common proof of impact is not possible, however, on behalf of those purchasers who bought non-list price products.”
• “we are persuaded that, despite the wide range of products and prices involved, common proof of impact is possible on behalf of purchasers who bought list-price products”
• “We need not consider [expert's affidavit] in detail, as it is for the jury to evaluate this conflicting evidence and to determine what weight to give the expert’s conclusions.”
• “Courts have routinely held, however, that the need for individualized determinations of the putative class members’ damages do not, without more, preclude certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(3).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).