United States Gypsum Company v. Indiana Gas Company, Incorporated, and Proliance Energy LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a complaint’s failure to overcome affirmative defenses does not warrant dismissal
• explaining that Indiana state court ruling could have issue-preclusive effect on aspects of Sherman Act claim
• stating that the “statute of limitations” is an “affirmative defense[ ]” and “[c]omplaints need not anticipate or attempt to defuse potential defenses”
• explaining that “old activity . . . is not immunized, if the potential for [an antitrust injury] is created or realized more recently as market conditions change”
• holding that complaint need not overcome affirmative defenses
• questioning the wisdom of the “antitrust standing” nomenclature in light of No. 05-1196 9 the potential for confusion with Article III standing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).