DEFENSE · 15usc1:x-law-of-the-case
Procedural defense invoked where prior rulings in a multidistrict litigation address overlapping conspiracy allegations.
Exact element source
is declared to be illegalSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title15.jsonl#title15_sec1; Unicode character offsets [220:245] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9c248965c2c712de1e3f3d52a17be4c90dfdcac5d3f9fea0b7220b164e2c2973.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _whole accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. — 351 F. Supp. 3d 698 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 — not · law (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/procedural · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. — 351 F. Supp. 3d 698 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 — not · law (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Law-of-the-case doctrine in consolidated/MDL antitrust proceedings | not Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural basis: law Not a defense: it is the PLAINTIFF's preclusion-type argument (the earlier ruling that it was a boycott target binds the court), rejected. `scope procedural` keeps it out of the instance counts; the `defense` kind still inverts the parties. | offensive-by-plaintiff/separate-mdl-action-must-state-own-claim | The Court's earlier ruling insofar as it addressed a § 1 conspiracy reaching trueEX was made on the basis of complaints in two other cases: the putative class action brought by investor plaintiffs and the joint action brought by Javelin and Tera.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_351.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01; Unicode character offsets [9731:9977] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fc0ce3b5b594533bf7983e3ac6f93e376c4d197c6a565e4382d2c04e6842b9a.In an MDL proceeding, each lawsuit consolidated within the MDL must independently state a claim.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_351.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01; Unicode character offsets [10860:10956] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fc0ce3b5b594533bf7983e3ac6f93e376c4d197c6a565e4382d2c04e6842b9a.The Court therefore evaluates trueEX's complaint de novo , unconstrained by the law of the case doctrine.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_351.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01; Unicode character offsets [12874:12979] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fc0ce3b5b594533bf7983e3ac6f93e376c4d197c6a565e4382d2c04e6842b9a. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
In an MDL proceeding, each lawsuit consolidated within the MDL must independently state a claim.
In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. — 351 F. Supp. 3d 698 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
In an MDL proceeding, each lawsuit consolidated within the MDL must independently state a claim.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_351.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01; Unicode character offsets [10860:10956] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fc0ce3b5b594533bf7983e3ac6f93e376c4d197c6a565e4382d2c04e6842b9a.Procedural defense invoked where prior rulings in a multidistrict litigation address overlapping conspiracy allegations.