Daily Case Update Archive

As a service to our members, we monitor opinions issued from the Ohio Supreme Court, the Ohio State First District Court of Appeals, and the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  You can read the latest summaries or archived summaries from 2005 or 2006.

If you would like to receive a daily e-mail with same-day case updates, please join our Members-Only discussion list.  Not a member?  Join today!

May 10, 2007

Ohio Supreme Court | Ohio First District | U.S. 6th Circuit - Ohio | U.S. 6th Circuit - Other States
 

TOPICS:
- Sherman Antitrust Act - unlawful monopolization
- Breach of Contract - Damages - Awards
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

No Opinions.
 

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals:  Ohio Cases

 

JBDL Corp. v. Wyeth-Ayerst Lab (May 10, 2007) (Appeal from S.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0168p-06.pdf
-  This litigation arose out of efforts by appellee, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Inc., to protect its market share in the oral estrogen replacement therapy market through the use of contractual agreements with third-party payer entities. Appellants, wholesale and retail purchasers, brought suit against Wyeth under § 2 of the Sherman Act, alleging that, as a result of Wyeth’s allegedly anticompetitive conduct, they were subject to increased prices on one of Wyeth’s drugs. On Wyeth’s motion, the district court granted summary judgment on appellants’ § 2 claim, and this consolidated appeal followed. For the reasons below, we affirm.
 

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Other States Cases

 

Poundstone v. Patriot Coal Co (May 10, 2007) (Appeal from W.D. Ky)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0169p-06.pdf
-  In this action for breach of contract, Defendant Patriot Coal Co. appeals certain orders entered by the district court related to the calculation of damages, and asks us to modify the law of the case by finding that a decision by a prior panel of this Court was clearly erroneous. Plaintiffs D.C. Hall, Jr., Ed Phelps, Dennis Hall, and William Poundstone cross-appeal, challenging the interest rate selected by the district court to govern the award of prejudgment interest. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court’s decisions, decline the invitation to modify the law of the case, and reverse only with regard to Plaintiffs’ crossappeal as to the prejudgment interest rate required by Kentucky law.
 

Daily Case Updates