Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach
United States Supreme Court case
Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that a district court conducting coordinated pretrial proceedings in multiple cases by designation of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation under 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a) has no authority to reassign a transferred case to itself for the actual trial of the case. The Court's decision overturned numerous lower-court decisions upholding what had become a common practice in multi-district cases.
Background
The case originated when Lexecon Inc., a consulting firm that provided expert services to defense lawyers in securities cases, and Lexecon's principal, Daniel Fischel, sued the Milberg Weiss law firm in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago. The suit alleged defamation and other torts arising from allegations that Milberg Weiss had made against Lexecon concerning Lexecon's work for lawyers representing Lincoln Savings Bank.
Many other lawsuits had been filed in federal courts arising from disputes involving the collapse of Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. The Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation had previously directed that all these cases be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in Phoenix for coordinated pre-trial proceedings, pursuant to the multi-district litigation statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1407. While the case was pending in Phoenix, Milberg Weiss moved that the case be transferred to Phoenix for purposes of the trial itself. Lexecon objected, arguing that the statute allowed for only pre-trial proceedings, not the actual trial, to be held in the "transferee" district and that it was entitled to have the trial in its chosen forum of Chicago.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach” as united States Supreme Court case. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as united States Supreme Court case. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 27, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q6537650. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1998 and 1407.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach primary sources, Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach archive and Lexecon research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.