Williamson Oil Company, Inc. v. Philip Morris USA

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that evidence tending to exclude indepen-' dent conduct is necessary only when the plaintiff relies on circumstantial evidence to prove a conspiracy
• concluding that district court did not abuse discretion by excluding expert testimony that was not relevant
• holding that moving party bears the initial burden of establishing there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
• holding that the judge does not act as fact-finder, but only makes a determination of the “reasonableness of the inferences that c[an] be drawn from the evidence, [which are] threshold legal determinations that appropriately [are] made by the district court”
• holding that moving party bears the initial 3Although Rule 56 underwent stylistic changes in 2010, the revision of “[s]ubdivision (a) carries forward the summary- judgment standard expressed in former subdivision (c
• explaining that where the “only viable route back to profitability was to increase prices,” doing so was in their economic interest and “that they did so in a parallel manner does not establish collusion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).