Carolyn G. Kochert v. Greater Lafayette Health Services, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the Sherman Act aims \to assure customers the benefits of price competition\ (quoting Associated Gen. Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters , 459 U.S. 519 , 538, 103 S.Ct. 897 , 74 L.Ed.2d 723 (1983) )
• finding plaintiff failed to show standing “because she 1s not the party who can most effectively vindicate the purposes of the antitrust laws” (internal citation omitted)
• addressing Article III standing, then antitrust standing, in an antitrust suit
• disagreeing with the district court’s conclusion that the antitrust plaintiff lacked Article III standing, and opining that the question of “whether any of defendants’ actions were anticompetitive” is more appropriately assessed “in the context of antitrust standing and antitrust injury.”
• “Antitrust standing requires more than the ‘injury in fact’ and the ‘case or controversy’ required by Arti- cle III of the Constitution.”
• antitrust injury must \reflect the anticompetitive effect of either the violation or of anticompetitive acts made possible by the violation\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).