AND · 15usc1:injury
Under Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc. (429 U.S. 477, 489 (1977)), plaintiff must prove "antitrust injury, which is to say injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants' acts unlawful" — harm to competition, not merely harm to an individual competitor.
Exact element source
is declared to be illegalSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title15.jsonl#title15_sec1; Unicode character offsets [220:245] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9c248965c2c712de1e3f3d52a17be4c90dfdcac5d3f9fea0b7220b164e2c2973.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| antitrust-injury/plaintiff-seeks-share-of-supracompetitive-profits | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp/864/1175-01 — United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · 1994 — not | |
| antitrust-injury/suspended-physician-still-practicing-elsewhere | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp/864/1175-01 — United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · 1994 — not | |
| fact-of-damage/lost-supply-from-principal-supplier-joining-boycott | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f2d/361/0874-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1966 — satisfied | |
| Unspecified variant | No variant assigned in the database. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 9 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp-2d/385/0740-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2005 — rule-announced/merits; /f-supp-3d/351/0698-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 — applied/merits; /f2d/589/0451-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979 — applied/merits |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f-supp-2d/385/0740-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2005 | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f-supp-3d/351/0698-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f-supp/864/1175-01 — United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · 1994 | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; party: Sand Lake, ORHS/ORMC; count: Count III (concerted suspension of hospital privileges); subject: party=Sand Lake, ORHS/ORMC; count=Count III (concerted suspension of hospital privileges) Five-month suspension at one hospital system harmed the competitor, not competition: no reduction in services, number of internists, or effect on price. Distinguished from cases where the exclusion effectively ended the doctor's ability to practice in the area. | antitrust-injury/suspended-physician-still-practicing-elsewhere | Plaintiff asserts that Sand Lake, ORMC and another internist conspired to blacklist Plaintiff by summarily suspending his staff and emergency room privileges and circulating to other doctors the notice of his suspension.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [3978:4198] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3.During this period of time, Plaintiff had staff privileges at Florida Hospital’s several campuses, Charter Hospital and Glenbeigh.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [6729:6859] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3.Immediately after his suspension, Plaintiff began using Florida Hospital for the hospitalization of his patients.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [6936:7049] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3.During the time his privileges were suspended at Sand Lake and ORMC, Plaintiff was able to admit patients to several other hospitals.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [10956:11089] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3.To be a proper party, a plaintiff must have suffered an antitrust injury and must be an efficient enforcer of the antitrust laws.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [4861:4990] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3.Whatever may be said about his personal injuries, his suspension from ORMC and Sand Lake does not constitute an antitrust injury.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [13281:13410] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3. |
| /f-supp/864/1175-01 — United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · 1994 | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; party: CFMA, Healthchoice; count: Count I (exclusion from closed-panel PPO); theory: plaintiff wants admission to the closed panel (deposition version); subject: party=CFMA, Healthchoice; count=Count I (exclusion from closed-panel PPO); theory=plaintiff wants admission to the closed panel (deposition version) Court assumes the closed panel is an illegal restriction; a rival who wants in on the restricted arrangement is injured by being denied its fruits, not by reduced competition (Todorov). | antitrust-injury/plaintiff-seeks-share-of-supracompetitive-profits | He was informed that there were already enough internists in his quadrant of the city to meet HealthcAoice member needs.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [3400:3520] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3.Plaintiff responded, “I haven’t sat down -with a pencil and paper and tried to figure it out. But I figured, "with what everyone else is telling me, I could have done 20 percent better.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [26205:26391] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3.Plaintiffs expectation is rooted in an assumption that his application would be accepted, and that he would serve on an equal footing with all other doctors on the closed panel.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [26428:26605] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3.He hopes to benefit from the Defendant’s allegedly anticompetitive conduct.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [26772:26847] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3.He merely hopes to profit from the allegedly anticompetitive conduct of others.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [31032:31111] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3. |
| /f2d/361/0874-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1966 | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved Defendant's alternative causes (fewer cars offered, new bidders, changed bidding procedure) went to the jury; substantial-contribution causation suffices. | fact-of-damage/lost-supply-from-principal-supplier-joining-boycott | Several months after the first mailing of defendant’s letter, plaintiff’s purchases of factory Fords declined sharply.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_361.jsonl#/f2d/361/0874-01; Unicode character offsets [5404:5522] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3e8e08a932e895de43a7032f3e31321a87a2b612988a02f8668089d2496e25d3.That Haar purchased 54 factory Fords in 1960 and sold 50 of them to plaintiff, but purchased only 14 in 1961 (and sold 5 to plaintiff), and 10 in 1962 (and sold 6 to plaintiff), was the direct result, plaintiff concludes, of that participation.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_361.jsonl#/f2d/361/0874-01; Unicode character offsets [30037:30281] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3e8e08a932e895de43a7032f3e31321a87a2b612988a02f8668089d2496e25d3.In the calendar years 1959 and 1960 slightly over half of plaintiff’s gross profit was derived from resale of factory Fords obtained from Ford dealers.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_361.jsonl#/f2d/361/0874-01; Unicode character offsets [938:1089] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3e8e08a932e895de43a7032f3e31321a87a2b612988a02f8668089d2496e25d3.a plaintiff in an antitrust suit is not barred merely because factors other than defendant’s unlawful conduct may have contributed to its injury.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_361.jsonl#/f2d/361/0874-01; Unicode character offsets [32593:32738] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3e8e08a932e895de43a7032f3e31321a87a2b612988a02f8668089d2496e25d3.On the basis of this record the jury was justified in concluding that with reasonable probability there was a substantial causal connection between defendant’s unlawful acts and the decline in plaintiff’s purchases of factory Fords.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_361.jsonl#/f2d/361/0874-01; Unicode character offsets [33085:33317] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3e8e08a932e895de43a7032f3e31321a87a2b612988a02f8668089d2496e25d3. |
| /f2d/589/0451-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979 | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/117/1137-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997 | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/496/0403-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007 | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsAntitrust-injury argument not reached below; defendants may reurge on remand. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /us/547/0001-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /us/550/0544-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2007 | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /us/551/0877-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2007 | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / meritsJury awarded $1.2 million (trebled) for the terminated retailer; damages/injury not reviewed. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /us/560/0183-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2010 | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
To be a proper party, a plaintiff must have suffered an antitrust injury and must be an efficient enforcer of the antitrust laws.
/f-supp/864/1175-01 — United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · 1994
To be a proper party, a plaintiff must have suffered an antitrust injury and must be an efficient enforcer of the antitrust laws.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [4861:4990] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3.Under Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc. (429 U.S. 477, 489 (1977)), plaintiff must prove "antitrust injury, which is to say injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants' acts unlawful" — harm to competition, not merely harm to an individual competitor.
interpretation
a plaintiff in an antitrust suit is not barred merely because factors other than defendant’s unlawful conduct may have contributed to its injury.
/f2d/361/0874-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1966
a plaintiff in an antitrust suit is not barred merely because factors other than defendant’s unlawful conduct may have contributed to its injury.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_361.jsonl#/f2d/361/0874-01; Unicode character offsets [32593:32738] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3e8e08a932e895de43a7032f3e31321a87a2b612988a02f8668089d2496e25d3.Under Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc. (429 U.S. 477, 489 (1977)), plaintiff must prove "antitrust injury, which is to say injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants' acts unlawful" — harm to competition, not merely harm to an individual competitor.
not-required
Proof that the antitrust violation was the *sole* cause of the plaintiff's injury, so long as it was a material and substantial cause (Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 114 n.9 (1969); Ford v. Webster's Auto Sales)
No source quotation recorded.