Cellular Plus, Inc. v. Superior Court

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the Cartwright Act requires a sufficient allegation of antitrust injury
• finding “filed-rate doctrine” inapplicable to cause of action for price fixing under the Cartwright Act
• “[The p]laintiff’s injuries were not ‘secondary’ or ‘consequential,’ since they did not result from injury to third parties; they were not ‘remote,’ for they were the direct result of the allegedly illegal conduct.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).