Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc. v. Land O'Lakes, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, while filed rate doctrine does apply to challenges to milk pricing set under an FMMO, it does not apply to a challenge to a defendant’s artificially inflated wholesale milk prices, which are permitted to be in excess of the minimum rates set under the FMMOs
• explaining that “plaintiff is not challenging . . . the minimum milk rates set [under the USDA]” and “concede[s] . . . any claim challenging [USDA] orders or the rates themselves clearly would be barred by the filed rate doctrine”
• “[T]he antitrust laws do not limit standing to only that class of purchasers with the most direct injury.”
• “[T]he antitrust laws do not limit standing to only that class of purchasers with the most direct injury.”
• “As plaintiff seems to concede, any claim challenging [the FMMOs] or the [minimum milk] rates themselves clearly would be barred by the filed rate doctrine.”
• “[n]either of the underlying purposes of the filed rate doctrine are implicated” where the plaintiffs were challenging the “artificially inflated prices charged by defendants above [the mínimums set by the USDA]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).