D.R. Ward Construction Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “equitable remedies for unjust enrichment claims are often awarded when state statutory claims prove unsuccessful”
• observing that “[t]he purpose” of § 2465 “‘is to clarify the right of an indirect purchaser to obtain recovery for a violation of [Vermont] antitrust law”
• noting that \the concept of prudential standing in the antitrust context is intertwined with the substantive content of and intent behind the particular statute authorizing the cause of action\
• denying defendants’ motion to dismiss, for lack of standing, claims under the Arizona, Tennessee, and Vermont antitrust acts by consumers who purchased products containing price-fixed plastic additives
• “[T]he Tennessee Supreme Court expressly permits independent unjust enrichment claims by indirect purchasers . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).