AND · 15usc1:standing
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).
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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| efficient-enforcer/speculative-damages-from-hypothetical-open-market | 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 | |
| improper-plaintiff/shareholder-of-injured-corporation | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/496/0403-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007 — applied/lower-court | |
| Unspecified variant | No variant assigned in the database. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 5 | 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/361/0874-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1966 — 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 | Antitrust standing / efficient enforcer test (Associated General Contractors; Illinois Brick) | 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 | Antitrust standing / efficient enforcer test (Associated General Contractors; Illinois Brick) | 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 | Antitrust standing / efficient enforcer test (Associated General Contractors; Illinois Brick) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; party: CFMA, Healthchoice; count: Count I (exclusion from closed-panel PPO); theory: plaintiff wants the panel opened to all physicians (affidavit version); subject: party=CFMA, Healthchoice; count=Count I (exclusion from closed-panel PPO); theory=plaintiff wants the panel opened to all physicians (affidavit version) | efficient-enforcer/speculative-damages-from-hypothetical-open-market | There are currently 2,200 licensed physicians in the Orlando area. Healthchoice presently has 863 physicians on its provider panel in Orange, Seminole and Osceola Counties.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [29137:29309] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3.It is impossible to predict how many of the doctors not currently on the panel would choose to participate in Healthchoice.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [29310:29433] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3.There is no way to know how many patients would choose Plaintiff as their internist or what services those patients would require.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [30172:30302] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3.A second factor is the nature of the plaintiffs damages claims. Id. If the claims are highly speculative,' the plaintiff may not have standing.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [23502:23645] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3.It appears that any damages Plaintiff may be able to claim are highly speculative. Therefore, Plaintiff is not an efficient enforcer of this alleged antitrust violation.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [30615:30784] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3. |
| /f2d/361/0874-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1966 | Antitrust standing / efficient enforcer test (Associated General Contractors; Illinois Brick) | 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 | Antitrust standing / efficient enforcer test (Associated General Contractors; Illinois Brick) | 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 | Antitrust standing / efficient enforcer test (Associated General Contractors; Illinois Brick) | not Excluded from merits counts applied / lower-court basis: law; party: Graziosi individually (sole shareholder and CEO of TWA); subject: party=Graziosi individually (sole shareholder and CEO of TWA) The DISTRICT COURT's ruling, reported in a footnote and not reviewed: Graziosi does not challenge it on appeal, so this panel decides nothing about standing. The opinion does not give the district court's reasoning; [law] is inferred from the variant (shareholder of the injured corporation). | improper-plaintiff/shareholder-of-injured-corporation | The district court held that Graziosi did not individually have standing to pursue the antitrust claims. Although Graziosi is listed as an appellant, she does not appear to challenge the district court’s standing ruling on appeal.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_496.jsonl#/f3d/496/0403-01; Unicode character offsets [28425:28655] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e7bf47d83c34c0b4e79ec63d6ed3cf9a5e59ba0f90c9fd20bec55b9f6416201. |
| /us/550/0544-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2007 | Antitrust standing / efficient enforcer test (Associated General Contractors; Illinois Brick) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations
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
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 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
A second factor is the nature of the plaintiffs damages claims. Id. If the claims are highly speculative,' the plaintiff may not have standing.
/f-supp/864/1175-01 — United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · 1994
A second factor is the nature of the plaintiffs damages claims. Id. If the claims are highly speculative,' the plaintiff may not have standing.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [23502:23645] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3.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).