Skip to main content
Eighth Circuit· 8/26/1992

Amerinet, Inc. v. Xerox Corp.

Citations

  • 972 F.2d 1483
  • 1992 WL 205510

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • noting that the plaintiff's damage expert admitted that the plaintiff was in a period of decline prior to the defendant's alleged antitrust violations
  • noting that the plaintiffs damage expert admitted that the plaintiff was in a period of decline prior to the defendant’s alleged antitrust violations
  • affirming summary judgment where evidence showed customers “could realistically have purchased” the tying product separately
  • refusing to find an illegal tie in part because the plaintiff did not demonstrate that defendant used its market power in the tying product market “to shelter an inferior or overpriced product from competition”
  • once causation of damages established amount of damages may be determined by just and reasonable estimate
  • \wrongful means\ is \conduct which is itself capable of forming the basis for liability of the actor\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Beam, Kaufman, Loken

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

101 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

62 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Amerinet, Inc. v. Xerox Corp.

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.