United States v. Malinsky

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that non-settling defendants lacked standing to seek enforcement of already- settled defendant’s unresolved discovery requests
• explaining that Illinois Brick held that an indirect purchaser can’t establish antitrust “standing by demonstrating that the direct purchaser passed on the additional costs” (citing Illinois Brick, 431 U.S. at 728–29)
• “[T]he totality of the Intervenors’ requests faithfully mirror (1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).