Legal Opinion
In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided March 14, 2001No. Nos. 99-73259, 99-73870; Master File No. 99-MD-1278; MDL No. 1278PublishedCited by 80 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER NO. 24
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING SHERMAN ACT CLASS PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
EDMUNDS, District Judge.
Sherman Act Class Plaintiffs are direct purchasers, or their assignees, of Cardizem CD.1 They allege that Defendants engaged in a continuing agreement, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that they were injured and suffered damages as a result of Defendants’ conduct including its September 24, 1997 Agreement (“HMRI/Andrx Agreement”)…
2Cases cited49 opinions
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. WindsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. FalconSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by80 opinions
- Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Marketing on Hold Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 2010
- In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 2004
- Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litigation v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2001
- In re Relafen Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2003
- Bentley v. Honeywell International Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2004
75 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.