In re the Marriage of Pipes

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a private plaintiff seeking antitrust damages must prove injury “attributable to an anti-competitive aspect of the practice under scrutiny”
• holding that even in cases that involve conduct that is illegal per se, plaintiff must allege and prove antitrust injury
• holding that an antitrust plaintiff has standing if his injury flows from the anti-competitive aspects of the challenged practice
• holding that a firm does not incur an antitrust injury when it loses sales to a competitor charging nonpredatory prices pursuant to a vertical, maximum-price- fixing scheme
• explaining that a plaintiff suffers antitrust injury if its injury ―stems from a competition- reducing aspect or effect of the defendant‘s behavior‖
• observing that “[t]he antitrust injury requirement ensures that a plaintiff can recover only if the loss stems from a competition-reducing aspect or effect of the defendant’s behavior.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).