Legal Opinion
In Re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided July 7, 2003No. 99-197 (TFH) MDL 1285. Nos. 00-1236, 00-547, 1:99-544PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
270 F.Supp.2d 15 (2003)
In re: VITAMINS ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Archer Daniels Midland
v.
F. Hoffman-Laroche, Ltd., et al.
Hill's Pet Nutrition
v.
F. Hoffman-Laroche, Ltd., et al.
Animal Science Products, Inc.
v.
Chinook Group, Ltd., et al.
No. 99-197 (TFH) MDL 1285. Nos. 00-1236, 00-547, 1:99-544.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
July 7, 2003.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
THOMAS F. HOGAN, Chief Judge.
Re: Cope Investments Motions to Dismiss
Pending before the Court are the motions of defendant Cope Investments Limited ("Cope") to dismiss it as defendant from the Archer Daniels Midland v. F.…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- In Re Papst Licensing Gmbh & Co. Kg LitigationDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2008
- AEROFLEX WICHITA, INC. v. FilardoSupreme Court of Kansas · 2012
- Veney v. Starbucks Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 2008
- Gibbs v. PrimelendingSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2011
- Johnson v. Lumenos, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2007
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.