Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that in the context of summary judgment motions, the factual predicate of an expert's opinion must find some support in the record such that mere theoretical speculations will not create a genuine issue of fact
• discounting the influence of physicians serving on certain committees when corporate bylaws vested ultimate control in the board
• stating “[a] primary criterion used to assess the existence of monopoly power is the defendant’s market share”
• finding a market share of between 32% and 35% insufficient as a matter of law to establish monopolization
• upholding District Court’s refusal to certify class where proposed class consisted of two groups with inherently conflicting interests
• stating, in evaluating order granting summary judgment, “that the factual predicate of an expert’s opinion must find some support in the record.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).