In the Interest of C. A. B., Children (Mother)

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that plaintiffs had standing but failed to prove causation under the Sherman Act
• concluding that plaintiff had “just barely” pleaded sufficient facts for Article III injury‐in‐ fact, and in any event, plaintiff did not allege the type of injury the anti‐ trust laws were meant to prevent
• concluding “[t]here is, after all, a more appropriate person to pursue [a] claim” when that person’s “self-interest would normally motivate them to vindicate the public interest in an- titrust enforcement”
• noting that standing requires “(1) a concrete and particularized injury in fact that is (2) fairly traceable to the alleged action of the defendant and (3) likely to be redressed by a favorable decision”
• noting that standing requires “(1) a concrete and particularized injury in fact that is (2) fairly traceable to the alleged action of the defendant and (3) likely to be redressed by a favorable decision”
• “[T]he Sherman Act has additional rules for determining whether the plaintiff is the proper party to bring a private antitrust ac- tion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).