Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiffs’ injuries did 15 not flow from that which made defendant’s conduct illegal where the theory of harm 16 depended on the independent actions of others
• holding that damages could not be awarded where, although the plaintiff suffered a loss as a result of unlawful acquisitions, the loss “did not occur ‘by reason of that which made the acquisitions unlawful”
• explaining that antitrust laws “were enacted for ‘the protection of competition not competitors’ ” (quoting Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 320, 82 S.Ct. 1502, 8 L.Ed.2d 510 (1962))
• rejecting claim for loss of income that would have been earned if other competitors had been forced out of the market and competi- tion had thus been reduced
• using cheap financing to sell expensive houses may be an unusual credit bargain, but not an antitrust violation
• describing the differences between actions under Section 4 and Section 7 of the Clayton Act in their treatment of illegal acquisitions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).