PrimeSource Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that foreign vitamin distributors could not bring a claim under the Foreign _ Trade Antitrust Improvements Act for solely foreign injury
• recognizing that the application of U.S. antitrust law to foreign conduct “creates a serious risk of interference with a foreign nation’s ability independently to regulate its own commercial affairs”
• observing that the FTAIA does not prohibit inquiry into foreign conduct that is relevant to domestic claims.
• recognizing the long- established view that U. S. antitrust laws “refect a legisla- tive effort to redress domestic antitrust injury that foreign anticompetitive conduct has caused” (emphasis deleted)
• recognizing the long-established view that U. S. antitrust laws “reflect a legislative effort to redress domestic antitrust injury that foreign anticompetitive conduct has caused” (emphasis de- leted)
• noting that “the FTAIA’s language and history suggest that Congress designed the FTAIA to clarify . . . the Sherman Act’s scope as applied to foreign commerce”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).