Legal Opinion
Paper Systems Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corp.
District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Decided May 5, 2000No. Nos. 96-C-959, 97-C-412, 97-C-508PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION AND ORDER
ADELMAN, District Judge.
In these three consolidated antitrust actions, plaintiffs contend that sellers of heat-sensitive facsimile paper conspired to fix prices from February 1990 through March 1992, in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Suit is brought under § 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15. Plaintiffs seek to bring the suit as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Currently before me is plaintiffs’ motion to certify a proposed class.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
At the time these complaints were filed in 1996, thermal…
2Cases cited47 opinions
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. WindsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. FalconSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Coopers & Lybrand v. LivesaySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- In re Cardizem CD Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2001
- In re Linerboard Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2001
- Donald R. Wild and Diana H. Wild v. Subscription Plus, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2002
- Mendez v. Radec Corp.District Court, W.D. New York · 2009
- In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. Tires Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · 2001
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.