Legal Opinion
In Re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litigation
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided December 20, 2006No. MDL 1290PublishedCited by 42 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
THOMAS F. HOGAN, Chief Judge.
Pending before the Court are several post-trial motions. Defendant Mylan Laboratories, Inc., Defendant Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (together, “Mylan”), Defendant Cambrex Corpoi'ation (“Cambrex”), and Defendant Gyma Laboratories of America, Inc. (“Gyma”), collectively (“Defendants”), filed the following post-trial motions: Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Under Rule 50(b) [dkt. 883], Defendants’ Motion for New Trial Under Rule 59(a) [dkt. 888], and Defendants’ Motion for Remittur under Rule 59(e) [dkt. 890], among others.…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Batson v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Hernandez v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Purkett v. ElemSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Long v. Howard UniversityDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2007
- Miller v. HolzmannDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2008
- Moore v. United StatesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2015
- ARMENIAN ASSEMBLY OF AMERICA, INC. v. CafesjianDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011
- Hancock v. Washington Hospital CenterCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2014
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.