Search for: "Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois"
Results 41 - 60
of 97
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 May 2008, 3:02 am
Apr. 30, 2008), the court considered the question of who qualifies as a "direct purchaser" of products under Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
13 May 2019, 9:53 am
The lower court relied on a 1977 case called Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 8:15 am
Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
30 Sep 2021, 2:41 pm
The suit was brought under the Cartwright Act instead of the federal antitrust laws because smartphone owners are indirect purchasers of smartphone chips and are barred from suit by the US Supreme Court’s decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
12 Jun 2019, 6:09 am
The key antitrust issue here is this: Illinois Brick doesn't give indirect purchasers (here, the consumers bought phones, but the makers of those devices paid patent royalties to Qualcomm) standing to seek damages under federal antitrust laws; but many states have, as some say, "repealed" (or one might also say "worked around") Illinois Brick by allowing such claims under state competition laws. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 8:58 pm
As a result of this alleged “price fix,” interchange fees are, Plaintiffs maintain, higher than they would otherwise be.Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
29 Nov 2018, 5:00 am
Under existing precedent in Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
17 Feb 2012, 6:03 am
., et al. v. [read post]
16 Mar 2023, 4:30 am
Hodari D. (1991), holding that a chase is not a Fourth Amendment “seizure,” with 16, Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
19 Nov 2018, 2:21 pm
It pointed to a 1977 case called Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
27 Aug 2010, 3:42 pm
Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
13 Apr 2009, 1:00 pm
Delano Farms Co. v. [read post]
23 Jan 2009, 5:26 am
Indirect purchasers can't make claims under the federal antitrust laws after the Supreme Court's seminal decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
9 Aug 2011, 12:10 pm
The case law is Quill Corp. v. [read post]
5 Aug 2018, 9:01 pm
In Janus v. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 4:05 am
Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
18 Sep 2016, 10:01 pm
Because Tauro did not buy transmissions directly from Eaton, the motion argued, it failed to meet the Supreme Court’s limitation on antitrust standing in Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
9 Jun 2008, 9:39 pm
Blawgletter found the issue interesting -- so much so that we co-wrote an amicus brief pro bono for the States of Connecticut, Arizona, Illinois, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. [read post]
Allegations That Designer Wedding Dress Line Constitutes A Relevant Product Market Found Implausible
30 Dec 2014, 10:36 am
., v. [read post]
21 Sep 2010, 6:00 am
I've discussed the problems with the Illinois Brick decision before. [read post]