Skip to main content
· 8/2/2007

Lorix v. Crompton Corp.

Citations

  • 736 N.W.2d 619
  • 2007 Minn. LEXIS 444
  • 2007 WL 2199236

How courts have described this case

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

  • in a case concerning indirect purchaser standing, finding it “beside the point that, in this case, the price-fixed component may or may not be present in the finished product.”
  • describing comparable statutory language in antitrust statute as “apparently limitless”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Anderson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.