Legal Opinion
In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation
District Court, D. Kansas
Decided August 13, 2010No. MDL No. 1840; No. 07-MD-1840-KHVPublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*267 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KATHRYN H. VRATIL, District Judge.
Plaintiffs bring putative class action claims for damages and injunctive relief against motor fuel retailers in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam. See Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (Doe. #652) filed December 1, 2008 ¶11. Plaintiffs claim that because…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. WindsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- East Texas Motor Freight System, Inc. v. RodriguezSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Devlin v. ScardellettiSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices LitigationDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2012
- Nieberding v. Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc.District Court, D. Kansas · 2014
- Lane v. PageDistrict Court, D. New Mexico · 2012
- Anderson v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 2020
- BRADLEY v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 2020
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.