Emergency One, Inc. v. Waterous Co., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• “the Wisconsin Supreme Court has for some time interpreted the state antitrust statutes to reach interstate activities in certain circumstances and has rejected a mutually exclusive vision of state/federal antitrust enforcement”
• “[T]he best indication that state legislators . .. meant to hold interstate actors accountable in certain situations . . .may be... the much-discussed inclusion of an indirect purchaser claim.”
• “Wisconsin case law makes clear that federal court decisions construing the Sherman Act control application of Wisconsin antitrust law, including determination of what acts constitute a combination or conspiracy in restraint • of trade.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).