Elkins v. Microsoft Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an indirect purchaser could recover in Vermont even before Vermont enacted explicit legislation to this effect
• holding that plain language of VCPA “does not support the imposition of a privity requirement”
• holding that the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act prohibiting unfair methods of competition was an additional state antitrust statute
• concluding that statutory amendment was clarification of existing law based on, among other things, “the expressly stated legislative intent” and “previous decisions construing the [act]”
• emphasizing that Vermont law under CFA rejects federal case-law on “indirect purchasers,” thereby giving more weight to consumer protection purpose of the CFA
• observing that, when construing a statute, the court evaluates “the plain meaning of the statutory language, because we presume that it reflects the Legislature’s intent”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).