Lewis v. Nalder C/W 81710

How courts have described this case

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

• emphasizing that the statute “allows any person who has been injured by trade or commerce indirectly affecting the people of th[e] Commonwealth [of New Hampshire] to bring a cause of action”
• implying that because Illinois Brick generally precludes indirect purchasers from bringing federal antitrust claims, such plaintiffs could not bring a claim under Chapter 93A, § 11
• noting that for actions brought under § 11, “the court shall be guided in its interpretation of unfair methods of competition by the provisions of the Antitrust Act” but that § 9 had no such requirement
• finding that indirect purchasers of vitamin products had standing to sue for anticompetitive conduct under Massachusetts consumer protection statutes even though they had no standing to bring such claims under' the Massachusetts Antitrust Act
• analyzing state law violations via the federal antitrust statutes and interpretations
• pointing out that the language of G.L.c. 93A, §1, purports to regulate trade and commerce “directly or indirectly affecting the people of this commonwealth” and holding that the plaintiffs, who were indirect purchasers of price-fixed products, had standing to recover under the statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).