Legal Opinion
In Re Modafinil Antitrust Litigation
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided September 13, 2016No. 15-3475PublishedCited by 112 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
“The class action is an ingenious device for economizing on the expense of litigation and enabling small claims to be litigated. The two points are closely related. If every small claim had to be litigated separately, the vindication of small claims would be rare. The fixed costs of litigation make it impossible.” Thorogood v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 547 F.3d 742, 744 (7th Cir. 2008). But not every group of plaintiffs should be granted class action status, because “[t]he class action is an ‘exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. WindsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. DukesSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. FalconSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of CarpentersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by112 opinions
- Christopher Mielo v. Steak N Shake Operations IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2018
- In Re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litigation Indirect Purchaser ClassCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2017
- In re: Lamictal Direct Purchas v.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2020
- In re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig.District Court, S.D. Illinois · 2018
- In re: Suboxone Antitrust v.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2020
107 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.