·
Case and law context
Interpretation-only case: no CASE context or instance blocks recorded in this snapshot.
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
standard of Rule 9(b), and accordingly, plaintiffs can allege an antitrust conspiracy by pleading circumstantial evidence of an illegal agreement.
standard of Rule 9(b), and accordingly, plaintiffs can allege an antitrust conspiracy by pleading circumstantial evidence of an illegal agreement.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_360.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/360/0730-01; Unicode character offsets [18441:18587] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1f8910a323ccf3d6ebebad02d768209fa54f8d2dede5be52740a926291937b54.Encompasses two distinct sub-inquiries: (1) capacity/plurality of actors (Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (1984); American Needle), and (2) existence/proof of an actual agreement rather than unilateral conduct (United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919)) or mere conscious parallelism (Twombly; Matsushita).