How cited: In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation · Go Syfert

In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation (1979)

green · 90 citation events across 19 courts. Showing the 34 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198020032026
Quote Authority · 3rd Cir. · 3 citations in this opinion
Id. at 49-50. 14 See, e.g., Abramovitz v. Ahern, 96 F.R.D. 208, 218 (D.Conn.1982) (issue of whether fraudulent concealment would toll the statute of limitations was common to all class members); In re Plywood Anti-Trust Litig., 76 F.R.D. 570, 586 (E.D.La.1976) ("fraudulent concealment issues appear to be generally common to all members in each class"); In re Sugar, 73 F.R.D. at 348 ; In re Fine Paper, 82 F.R.D. at 154-155 ("The key question on the issue of fraudulent conceal…
"The key question on the issue of fraudulent concealment will relate to whether defendants successfully concealed the existence of the alleged conspiracy, and the proof of this contention [what defendants did] will necessarily be common among the class members."
green In Re Linerboard (2002)
Quote Authority · 3rd Cir. · 3 citations in this opinion
La. 1976) ("fraudulent concealment issues appear to be generally common to all members in each class"); In re Sugar, 73 F.R.D. at 348 ; In re Fine Paper , 82 F.R.D. at 154-155 ("The key question on the issue of fraudulent concealment will relate to whether defendants successfully concealed the existence of the alleged conspiracy, and the proof of this contention [what defendants did] will necessarily be common among the class members."). 32 C.
"The key question on the issue of fraudulent concealment will relate to whether defendants successfully concealed the existence of the alleged conspiracy, and the proof of this contention [what defendants did] will necessarily be common among the class members."
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir. · 3 citations in this opinion
"It generally has been recognized that the question of concealment by [an] antitrust defendant is a common question, subject to being uniformly resolved on behalf of all members of the class." In re Flat Glass, 191 F.R.D. at 487 (citing In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitr'ast Li-tig., 169 F.R.D. 493, 519 (S.D.N.Y.1996); In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 82 F.R.D. 143, 154-155 (E.D.Pa.1979)).
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
The district court described “fine paper” as: “All printing and writing papers and all paper products into which such papers are converted, including coated and uncoated book, publication (excluding newsprint), printing and converting papers, offset papers, chemical writing papers (bond and writing, form bond, ledger, mimeograph, duplication and related papers), cotton content papers, cover and text papers, thin papers (excluding cigarette, condenser and filter papers), and …
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
Thus, had there been error associated with the trial court's failure to allow intervention, it would be harmless. 35 The orders of the district court will be affirmed. 1 The district court described "fine paper" as: "All printing and writing papers and all paper products into which such papers are converted, including coated and uncoated book, publication (excluding newsprint), printing and converting papers, offset papers, chemical writing papers (bond and writing, form bon…
Rule Authority · 10th Cir.
Penn. 1999); In re Alcoholic Beverages Litig., 95 F.R.D. 321, 327 (E.D.N.Y. 1982); In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 82 F.R.D. 143, 151-53 (E.D.
Rule Authority · 10th Cir.
Penn. 1999); In re Alcoholic Beverages Litig., 95 F.R.D. 321, 327 (E.D.N.Y. 1982); In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 82 F.R.D. 143, 151-53 (E.D.
Rule Authority · 10th Cir.
In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litig., 191 F.R.D. 472, 484-85 (W.D.Penn. 1999); In re Alcoholic Beverages Litig., 95 F.R.D. 321, 327 (E.D.N.Y.1982); In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 82 F.R.D. 143, 151-53 (E.D.Penn.1979); In re Folding Carton Antitrust Litig., 75 F.R.D. 727, 734 (N.D.I11.1977); see also In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litig., 527 F.3d 517, 535 (6th Cir.2008) (stating that “‘[predominance is a test readily met in certain cases alleging ... violations of the antitrus…
Rule Authority · 2d Cir.
The predominance requirement calls only for predominance, not exclusivity, of common questions. 35 In re Alcoholic Beverages Litig., 95 F.R.D. 321, 327-28 (E.D.N.Y.1982) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also In re Catfish Antitrust Litig., 826 F.Supp. 1019, 1044 (N.D.Miss.1993) (same); In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 82 F.R.D. 143, 154 (E.D.Pa.1979), aff'd, 685 F.2d 810 (3d Cir. 1982) (same). 36 Under Carlton's theory of the case, which the district court found to …
same
Rule Authority · 2d Cir.
In re Alcoholic Beverages Litig., 95 F.R.D. 321, 327-28 (E.D.N.Y.1982) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also In re Catfish Antitrust Litig., 826 F.Supp. 1019, 1044 (N.D.Miss.1993) (same); In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 82 F.R.D. 143, 154 (E.D.Pa.1979), aff'd, 685 F.2d 810 (3d Cir.1982) (same).
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir.
In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 82 F.R.D. 143, 147 (E.D.Pa.1979). .
dismissal of settling defendants; assignment of claims
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir.
In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 82 F.R.D. 143, 147 (E.D.Pa.1979). 2 This court previously has considered other issues arising from these proceedings.
dismissal of settling defendants; assignment of claims
Quote Authority · W.D. Pa. · signal: accord · 13 citations in this opinion
Amount of Damage With respect to the amount of damage, the Court of Appeals has stated that “[b]ecause separate proceedings can, if necessary, be held on individualized issues such as damages or reliance, such individual questions do not ordinarily preclude the use of the class action device.” In re GMC, 55 F.3d at 817 (citing Eisenberg v. Gagnon, 766 F.2d 770, 786 (3d Cir.1985)); accord In re Fine Paper, 82 F.R.D. at 154 (“it has been commonly recognized that the necessity …
“it has been commonly recognized that the necessity for calculation of damages on an individual basis should not preclude class determination when the common issues which determine liability predominate.”
Rule Authority · Okla. · 2 citations in this opinion
Diamonds Antitrust Litig., 167 F.R.D. 374, 385 (S.D.N.Y.1996) ("whether defendants actively concealed the alleged conspiracy clearly presents common questions of law and fact"); In re Aluminum Phosphide Antitrust Litig., 160 F.R.D. 609, 615 (D.Kan.1995); In re Potash Antitrust Litig., 159 F.R.D. 682, 699 (D.Minn.1995) ("'The great weight of authority indicates that, absent exceptional circumstances, individual questions that arise in proving fraudulent concealment will not o…
Rule Authority · N.D. Miss. · 2 citations in this opinion
Town of New Castle v. Yonkers Contracting Co., 131 F.R.D. 38, 43 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (common questions pervade fraudulent concealment inquiry); In re Wirebound Box Antitrust Litig., 128 F.R.D. 262, 272 (D.Minn.1989) (same); Fisher Bros. v. Mueller Brass Co., 102 F.R.D. 570, 579 (E.D.Pa.1984) (same); In re Screws Antitrust Litig., 91 F.R.D. 52 (D.Mass.1981) (same); In re Glassine and Greaseproof Paper Antitrust Litig., 88 F.R.D. 302, 307 (E.D.Pa.1980) (same); In re Fine Paper Anti…
Rule Authority · N.D. Ill. · 2 citations in this opinion
See In re South Central States Bakery Products Antitrust Litigation, 86 F.R.D. 407, 415-19 (M.D.La.1980); In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 82 F.R.D. 143, 150-51 (E.D.Pa.1979), appeal dismissed, 617 F.2d 22 (3d Cir.1980). 7 C.
Rule Authority · Colo.
The court then certified the class because "the crucial common questions on the fraudulent concealment issues will relate to whether defendants successfully concealed the existence of the alleged conspiracy, which proof will be common among the class members in each class." Id. at 488 ; see also In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., 305 F.3d 145, 163 (3d Cir. 2002) ("Notwithstanding the individual determinations that will undoubtedly arise at trial, common issues of concealment…
Rule Authority · C.D. Cal.
See Transamerican Refining Corp. v. Dravo, 130 F.R.D. 70, 72 , (S.D.Texas 1990); In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 82 F.R.D. 143, 151 (E.D.Pa. 1979), affd 685 F.2d 810 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied sub nom., Alaska v. Boise Cascade, 459 U.S. 1156 , 103 S.Ct. 801 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1983); In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, 80 F.R.D. 244, 245 (S.D.Texas 1978).
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
See Catfish, 826 F.Supp. at 1044 ; In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 82 F.R.D. 143, 155 (E.D.Pa.1979), aff'd, 685 F.2d 810 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1156 , 103 S.Ct. 801 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1983); In re Plywood Anti-Trust Litigation, 76 F.R.D. 570, 586 (E.D.La.1976). 3.
Rule Authority · D.N.J.
In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 82 F.R.D. 143, 151 (E.D.Pa.1979) (no conflict of interest found between plaintiff retailer and plaintiff consumers in class action antitrust suit against defendant paper manufacturers).
Rule Authority · N.D. Ga.
In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 82 F.R.D. 143, 153 (E.D.Pa.1979); Corrugated Container, 80 F.R.D. at 250 .
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
See e.g., Fisher Brothers v. Mueller Brass Company, 102 F.R.D. 570, 579 (E.D.Pa. 1984) (common questions as to the alleged concealment of the conspiracy by defendant and co-conspirators predominate over inquiries as to knowledge of various class members); In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 82 F.R.D. 143, 154 (E.D.Pa. 1979) (“key” question on issue of fraudulent concealment relates to whether defendants successfully concealed existence of alleged conspiracy), aff'd, 685 F…
“key” question on issue of fraudulent concealment relates to whether defendants successfully concealed existence of alleged conspiracy
Rule Authority · E.D. Pa.
Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330 , 99 S.Ct. 2326 , 60 L.Ed.2d 931 (1979); Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp., 392 U.S. 134, 139 , 88 S.Ct. 1981, 1984-85 , 20 L.Ed.2d 982 (1968); Lawlor v. National Screen Services Corp., 349 U.S. 322 , 75 S.Ct. 865 , 99 L.Ed. 1122 (1955); Bruce’s Juices, Inc. v. American Co., 330 U.S. 743 , 67 S.Ct. 1015 , 91 L.Ed. 1219 (1947); In re Chlorine and Caustic Soda Antitrust Litig., 116 F.R.D. 622, 624-25 (E.D.Pa.1987); In…
green O'CONNELL v. David (1983)
Rule Authority · E.D. Pa.
In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 82 F.R.D. 143, 150 (E.D.Pa.1979); Management Television Systems, Inc. v. National Football League, 52 F.R.D. 162, 164 (E.D.Pa.1971).
green Paskel v. Heckler (1983)
Rule Authority · E.D. Pa.
In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 82 F.R.D. 143, 149 (E.D.Pa.1979); Peterson v. Lehigh Valley Dist.
Cited · 3rd Cir. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 82 F.R.D. 143 (E.D.Pa.1979) (opinion on class certification).
Cited · 9th Cir. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 82 F.R.D. 143, 150-55 (E.D.Pa.1979); In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, 80 F.R.D. 244, 248 (S.D.Tex.1978); 3B Moore's Federal Practice P 23.46 (2d ed. 1979); Bernstein & Berger, supra, at 834.
Cited · 3rd Cir. · signal: see
See In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 82 F.R.D. 143 (E.D.Pa.1979) (opinion on class certification).
Cited (see also) · N.D. Cal. · signal: see, e.g. · 2 citations in this opinion
See, e.g., In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 82 F.R.D. 143 (E.D.Pa.1979) (certifying an 11 year class period); In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig., 80 F.R.D. 244 (S.D.Tex.1978) (certifying an 18 year class period). 3.
Cited · E.D. Pa. · signal: see
See In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 82 F.R.D. 143, 151-52 (E.D.Pa.1979) (noting that diversity of product, marketing practices, and pricing have not been fatal to class certification in numerous cases where conspiracy is “the overriding predominant question”), citing In re Folding Carton Antitrust Litig., 75 F.R.D. 727, 734 (N.D.Ill.1977); In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., 209 F.R.D. 251, 263 (D.D.C.2002) (“[C]ourts have found common impact in cases alleging price-fixing d…
Cited · E.D. Pa. · signal: see
See In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 82 F.R.D. 143, 150 (E.D.Pa.1979).
Cited · E.D. Wis. · signal: see
See In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 82 F.R.D. 143, 150 (E.D.Pa.1979).
Cited · N.D. Ill. · signal: see
See In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 82 F.R.D. 143, 155 (E.D.Pa.1979); In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, 80 F.R.D. 244, 248 (S.D.Tx.1978); In re Plywood Antitrust Litigation, 76 F.R.D. 570, 586 (E.D.La.1976). .
Cited · E.D. Pa. · signal: see
See In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 82 F.R.D. 143 (E.D.Pa.1979).