ROSA, MICHAEL ROSS, ROSS, RONALD C. v

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “[t]he rising cost of inputs would provide an obvious innocent explanation for the increase in steel prices” but not considering that argument because it was waived
• affirming 12(b)(6) dismissal on statute-of-limitations grounds that also considered relation back and equitable tolling on the same posture
• discussing Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 134 (2014)
• \Proximate causation is an essential element that plaintiffs must prove in order to succeed on any of their claims.\
• “While most states model their antitrust statutes and jurisprudence on federal law, they are under no obligation to do so.”
• “What’s more, Supreme Auto gave no indication during the first seven years of litigation that its suit included any more products other than [those alleged in the initial complaint].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).