Search for: "Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois" Results 1 - 20 of 77
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Mar 2020, 12:28 pm by Bona Law PC
The Co-Conspirator Exception to Illinois Brick For the Court to apply Illinois Brick, it must determine which entity is the seller and which entity is the direct purchaser. [read post]
1 Dec 2014, 9:41 pm by Barry Barnett
  Nor did Motorola's position square with a bedrock doctrine of U.S. antitrust law -- the "indirect purchaser" rule of Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
1 Jul 2008, 3:34 am
Today's ruling extended the Illinois Brick rule -- which gets its name from Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
23 May 2019, 7:23 am by Thomas Baer
They supported their argument with the Supreme Court decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 3:06 pm by Howard Ullman
There are several exceptions to the Illinois Brick rule, including the so-called Royal Printing exception (see Royal Printing Co. v. [read post]
22 Aug 2019, 1:28 pm
Apple moved to dismiss, arguing that the iPhone owners could not sue be­cause they were not direct purchasers from Apple under Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
26 Nov 2018, 2:06 am by Dennis Crouch
Apple argues that the lawsuit should be barred by Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
10 Aug 2012, 6:52 am by Sheppard Mullin
By Dylan Ballard and Nadezhda Nikonova  The Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed a grant of summary judgment for defendants in an antitrust suit involving alleged price-fixing of ATM fees, holding that the plaintiffs were indirect purchasers within the meaning of Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
6 Aug 2020, 1:50 pm
  (…) It is undisputed that, if the Anti-Assignment Provision prevents the assignment, then, under the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
8 Jun 2014, 1:20 pm by Robert Kreisman
In turn, Brandenburg hired Windy City Antique Brick Co. to retrieve, organize and haul away bricks at the site. [read post]
8 Mar 2020, 10:28 am by Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle
The panel then found that the customer-plaintiffs in the J&S suit lacked standing to sue for damages under Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
16 May 2019, 12:15 pm by Eric Caligiuri
As an early defense in the case, Apple asserted that the consumer plaintiffs could not sue Apple because they supposedly were not “direct purchasers” from Apple under Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 5:45 am by Christine Nielsen
The Supreme Court concluded in Leegin that such agreements should be evaluated under the rule of reason; and (2) section 905(d) allows damages for indirect purchasers, which are barred in federal antitrust law under Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]