Kolling v. Dow Jones & Co.

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 plaintiff in a Cartwright Act proceeding must show “antitrust injury . . . that is, the type of injury the antitrust laws were intended to prevent, and which flows from the invidious conduct which renders defendants’ acts unlawful.”
• applying California’s “market participant rule” to antitrust standing under the Cartwright Act, which requires a plaintiff to “show an injury within the area of the economy that is endangered by a breakdown of competitive conditions.”
• “Appellants failed to allege antitrust injury ... because they have failed to allege any facts to show they suffered an injury which was caused by restraints on competition.”
• \any combination which tampers with price structures constitutes an unlawful activity.\
• “any combination which tampers with price structures constitutes an unlawful activity.”
• “The analysis under 5 California’s antitrust law mirrors the analysis under federal law because the Cartwright Act, Cal. 6 Bus. & Prof. Code § 16700 et seq., was modeled after the Sherman Act.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).