Michael W. Callahan v. A.E.V., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that causation of an antitrust injury is an issue for the jury
• holding that a competitor of a racketeering organization could not maintain a RICO claim for loss of market share because the competitor’s damages were likely the result of legitimate competitive tactics as well as the racketeering activity
• noting that directly injured individuals generally enforce RICO rights with sufficient frequency to render unnecessary extending the right of action to the more remotely injured
• stating that “[a]lthough harm to the plaintiffs may have been a probable ultimate consequence of the defendants’ actions, we do not think they specifically intended to cause such harm”
• upholding the admission of employees’ testimony that customers “told them that they no longer shopped at the plaintiffs’ stores because of the [defendant’s] operations”
• reversing a grant of summary judgment on antitrust claims because the court was satisfied that the expert report, in conjunction with other evidence, \constitutes sufficient evidence of causation\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).