Grand Rapids Plastics, Inc. v. Craig M. Lakian

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that wrongful payments made after the initial overt act “were only a manifestation of the previous agreement .... [and] therefore do not constitute a ‘new and independent act’ ”
• applying Sherman Act Sixth Circuit caselaw to determine Robinson-Patman Act statute of limitation issue
• “The expectancy must be a reasonable likelihood or probability, not mere wishful thinking.”
• “[E]ven if the payment agreement constituted a continuing violation ... the individual payments ... viere only a manifestation of the previous agreement. The individual payments therefore do not constitute a ‘new and independent act,’ as required to restart the statute of limitations.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).