Hendricks v. Ohio

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that evidence that brokers were aware of other brokers’ policies before enacting their own policies is “nothing more than a restatement of conscious parallelism”
• explaining that “a defendant is entitled to summary judgment when it provides a plausible and justifiable alternative interpretation of its conduct that rebuts the alleged conspiracy”
• “[I]t is well established that evidence of informal communications among several parties does not unambiguously support an inference of a conspiracy.”
• fact that two companies were mutually aware of each other’s policies, combined with hostile comments made about a plaintiff, was insufficient to avoid summary judgment on price fixing claim
• defendant broker announced intent to pay reduced commission to buyer's brokers; legitimate business reason was that other brokers needed to know in advance what commissions defendant was willing to pay

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).