McAuliff v. Elliott

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a plaintiff bringing a claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act “must also allege an antitrust injury.”
• holding it was “unclear how either Mallinckrodt or Express Scripts communicated any, ‘misrepresentations,’ let alone communications made directly, to either [plaintiff].”
• explaining that “[t]he goal of the exclusive dealing arrangement was to . . . prevent a competitive product from entering the market. Express Scripts employed its market power to effectuate [this] goal[]” (internal quotation omitted)
• finding that the court did not need to determine which mode of antitrust analysis should be conducted because after discovery the court can better determine whether and how to take a more detailed look at the effects of defendants' conduct
• dismissing promissory estoppel claim where the facts incorporated reference to a contract but allowing for leave to replead allegations correctly.
• dismissing plaintiff's fraud claims because the price of Acthar was high but not fraudulent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).