Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
In Re Modafinil Antitrust Litigation
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided September 13, 2016No. 15-3475Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRendell, Circuit Judge
Today, the Majority concludes that the able District Court judge abused his discretion by purportedly focusing on a consideration that we have never — indeed, by my research, no court has ever — stated it should not consider. How can that be? Furthermore, how can it be that the Majority mischaracterizes the late stage of the proceedings as being the focus of Judge Goldberg’s ruling when his reasoning actually focuses on the considerations that our case law dictates it should? Also how can it be that in analyzing judicial economy district courts are prohibited from considering the stage of the…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Carnegie-Mellon University v. CohillSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Califano v. YamasakiSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Zambelli Fireworks Manufacturing Co. v. WoodCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2010
- General Telephone Co. of the Northwest, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Marcus v. BMW of North America, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2012
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.