Legal Opinion
In Re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided June 6, 2000No. 99-MD-1278PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER NO. 13
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
EDMUNDS, District Judge.
State Law Plaintiffs and Sherman Act Plaintiffs 1 are before the Court on mo tions, brought pursuant to FecLR.Civ.Pro. 56(a), for partial summary judgment. Plaintiffs’ motions raise a single issue, whether Defendants’ September 24, 1997 Agreement (“HMRI/Andrx Agreement”) constitutes a restraint of trade that is illegal per se under section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and under the various state antitrust laws at issue here. This Court answers this…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- In re Cardizem CD Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2003
- In Re K-Dur Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2004
- In Re: Cardizem Cd Antitrust Litigation. Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., and Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
- In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 2004
- Valley Drug Company v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2003
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.