Tolbert v. Young

How courts have described this case

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

• noting problem with Refrigerant Compressors and denying motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to show direct benefit under Arizona law
• noting problem with Refrigerant. Compressors and denying motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to show direct benefit under District of Columbia law
• dismissing claims under the MUTPCPA brought by indirect purchaser of Lidoderm patches because “[t]he statute excludes persons who buy goods for resale”
• dismissing claims by indirect purchasers under the Alaska consumer protection statute “in light of the clear intent of the Alaska antitrust statute reserving to the Alaska Attorney General the ability to seek damages on behalf of indirect purchasers”
• “[T]he NCUDT-PA itself does not contain or mandate a ‘substantial effects’ analysis.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).