Legal Opinion

Paul Liles v. Macomb County Employees

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Decided August 14, 2013No. 12-2339, 12-2354PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge.

A class of Motorola’s investors contended that, during the second half of 2006, the firm made false statements in order to disguise its inability to deliver a competitive mobile phone that could employ 3G protocols. When the problem became public, the price of Motorola’s stock declined. After the suit had been pending for four years, the district court denied Motorola’s motion for summary judgment. 798 F.Supp.2d 954 (N.D.Ill.2011). The parties then settled for $200 million. None of the class members contends that this is inadequate — but two contend that the judge…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Continental Illinois Securities Litigation v. Continental Illinois CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
  2. In the Matter Of: Synthroid Marketing LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2001
  3. Anita Kirchoff and William Kirchoff v. Michael FlynnCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
  4. Harman v. Lyphomed, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1991
  5. In the Matter Of: Synthroid Marketing LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2003

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

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Laffitte v. Robert Half International Inc.California Supreme Court · 2016
  2. In re Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2015
  3. Amadeck v. Capital One Financial Corp.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2015
  4. Levitt v. Sw. Airlines Co. (In re Sw. Airlines Voucher Litig.)Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018
  5. Gehrich v. Chase Bank USA, N.A.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2016

30 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