·
Case and law context
Interpretation-only case: no CASE context or instance blocks recorded in this snapshot.
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
This language has been interpreted in this Circuit to mean that a plaintiff alleging antitrust claims must establish antitrust standing in addition to constitutional standing under Article III.
This language has been interpreted in this Circuit to mean that a plaintiff alleging antitrust claims must establish antitrust standing in addition to constitutional standing under Article III.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_366.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/366/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [21172:21365] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21ba5d381b857bedf61b49ebebe3105ca6c58f886ee116633ba2f2342bd8f22f.Under Associated General Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Carpenters (459 U.S. 519 (1983)), courts balance: (1) causal connection and antitrust injury, (2) directness of the injury (and the Illinois Brick bar on indirect-purchaser damages suits), (3) speculative nature of damages, (4) risk of duplicative recovery or complex apportionment, and (5) existence of more direct victims ("efficient enforcer" factors).
interpretation
This language has been interpreted in this Circuit to mean that a plaintiff alleging antitrust claims must establish antitrust standing in addition to constitutional standing under Article III.
This language has been interpreted in this Circuit to mean that a plaintiff alleging antitrust claims must establish antitrust standing in addition to constitutional standing under Article III.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_366.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/366/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [21172:21365] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21ba5d381b857bedf61b49ebebe3105ca6c58f886ee116633ba2f2342bd8f22f.Accrues when a defendant commits an overt act that injures the plaintiff's business (Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 338 (1971)), subject to continuing-violation and fraudulent-concealment doctrines; criminal conspiracies run from the last overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy (United States v. Kissel; United States v. Kemp & Assocs.).