Santana Products, Inc. v. Sylvester & Associates, Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that although “[a] cause of action is not barred ... because anti-competitive conduct began outside the statutory period,” plaintiff must prove “some overt act injuring plaintiff [that] is committed within the limitations period”
• “Most district courts that have addressed the viability of a shared monopoly theory under Section 2 have rejected it as contrary to the plain language and legislative intent of the Sherman Act.”
• rejecting plaintiffs claim of conspiracy to form a shared monopoly

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).