Legal Opinion · Concurrence

In Re South Dakota Microsoft Antitrust Litigation

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided February 12, 2003No. NonePublished

1ConcurrenceKonenkamp, Justice

[¶ 38.] I concur in this decision, but with reservations. I express these reservations in view of the prospect that we may be .reviewing this case again before any final resolution. At some point, the plaintiffs’ expert, Professor Leffler, must verify his untested economic theories, just as all scientists must establish the reliability of their methods. By his own admission, Dr. Leffler offers only a prediction, a hypothesis that given enough time and data, he can adequately calculate damages for the class members. In an indirect purchaser action, the plaintiffs' must prove the actual damages…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Kumho Tire Co. v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  3. Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  4. United States Parole Commission v. GeraghtySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  5. In Re Visa Check/mastermoney Antitrust Litigation. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Limited, Inc., Sears Roebuck & Company, Safeway Inc., Circuit City Stores, Inc., National Retail Federation and the Food Marketing Institute, International Mass Retail Association, and All Similarly Situated Persons v. Visa U.S.A. Inc. And Mastercard International IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2001

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API