Mitchael v. Intracorp, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that an affidavit from a witness that “more clearly recalled discussions and meetings” that the witness could not remember at deposition “arguably contradicted his deposition” and represented “an attempt to create a sham issue of fact”
• holding consciously parallel behavior may indicate the existence of an illegal agreement when augmented with additional evidence from which an understanding among the parties may be inferred
• rejecting “single enterprise” theory “[i]n the absence of any specific evidence of coordinated activity” and distinguished on this basis in Lenox, 847 F.3d at 1234
• affirming the exclusion of an affidavit “in which [the affiant] arguably contradicted his deposition, or at least more clearly recalled discussions and meetings”
• affirming the exclusion of an affidavit “in which [the affiant] arguably contradicted his deposition, or at least more clearly recalled discussions and meetings”
• declining to consider a subsidiary as an insurance company only because its parent company owned other subsidiary insurance companies

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).