Last week, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, 42 other state attorneys general, and Puerto Rico filed a lawsuit in federal court in Connecticut against 20 manufacturers of generic drugs. The lawsuit alleges that the manufacturers are engaged in an illegal price-fixing scheme, driving up the costs of generic drugs for consumers, sometimes by several thousand percent. Over 500 pages, the complaint describes in detail the historical behavior of the companies that allegedly amounts to 33 counts of anti-competitive behavior in violation of federal antitrust law. Read More.
Featured Story
Recently Featured Dockets
Connecticut et al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (filed 5/10/19)
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
A lawsuit filed by 44 states against 20 leading drug companies alleging price fixing of certain generic drugs.
Ray et al v. T-Mobile US, Inc. (filed 5/2/19)
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Morrison v. Verizon Communications Inc. et al (filed 5/2/19)
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Morrison v. AT&T Mobility, LLC (filed 4/29/19)
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Baron v. Sprint Corporation (filed 4/29/19)
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
TRUMP et al v. CUMMINGS et al (filed 4/22/19)
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
A lawsuit filed by Donald Trump against the Democrats of the U.S. House of Representatives in order to stop the subpoena of Trump's tax records.
State of New York et al v. United States Department of Agriculture et al (filed 4/3/19)
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
The attorneys general of several states, including New York, California, Illinois, Minnesota, New Mexico, Vermont, and the District of Columbia, have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its weakening of the federal nutrition standards for school meals that are fed to about 30 million children across the country.
Other Legal News
Nationwide Injunctions Speak to Judiciary’s Growing Power, Barr Says
The New York Times, May 22, 2019
The broad use of such injunctions illustrates how the federal district courts have undermined executive authority, the attorney general said in a speech on Tuesday evening.
Congress Should End a ‘Harsh and Unfair’ Rule That Blocks Troops From Court
The New York Times, May 21, 2019
A 1950 Supreme Court decision makes it impossible for service members to recover damages from the government for negligence or misconduct they suffer while serving.
Opinion analysis: Justices narrow bankrupts’ power to rescind contracts in bankruptcy
SCOTUSblog, May 21, 2019
Yesterday’s opinion in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC resolved a long-standing disagreement in the lower courts about what happens when a debtor exercises its statutory right to reject a contract in bankruptcy. Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code gives the debtor an explicit right to “reject” contracts, and tells us that rejection amounts…
Supreme Court’s Conservative Majority Issues Another Atextual Ruling in a Sovereign Immunity Case
Justia's Verdict, May 15, 2019
Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the US Supreme Court’s recent decision in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, in which the conservative majority departed sharply from the brand of originalism that Justice Clarence Thomas (who authored the opinion) and his fellow conservatives purport to favor. Dorf points out the inconsistency of the Court’s conservative bloc criticizing liberal-leaning doctrine based on broad text in rights cases while simultaneously (as here) fashioning right-leaning doctrine from the murky materials of structure and history rather than text.
Accused of ‘Terrorism’ for Putting Legal Materials Online
The New York Times, May 13, 2019
After Carl Malamud posted Georgia’s annotated laws, the state sued for copyright infringement. Both sides have asked the Supreme Court to step in.
Revisions to the Rules of the Court
Supreme Court of the United States, April 18, 2019
The Supreme Court of the United States has adopted a revised version of the Rules of the Court. The new Rules will take effect on July 1, 2019. The revisions to the Rules include substantive changes to Rules 14.1(b), 15.2, 25.3, 29.1, 29.2 and 33.1(g). Changes to Rules 14.1(b) and 15.2 require parties to identify any trial and appellate court cases that are directly related to the case in this Court. This provision is designed to assist the Justices in determining whether their...
