Legal Opinion
Bunker's Glass Co. v. PILKINGTON, PLC
Arizona Supreme Court
Decided August 25, 2003No. CV-02-0140-PR, CV-02-0175-PRPublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BERCH, Justice.
¶ 1 The Arizona Antitrust Act provides that “[a] person ... injured in his business or property by a violation of this article may bring an action for ... damages sustained.” Ariz.Rev.Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 44-1408(B) (2003). The Defendants in these consolidated cases ask us to hold that an indirect purchaser who is able to prove injury to business or property from an antitrust violation does not fall within the scope of this provision. We conclude that Defendants’ interpretation contravenes the language of the statute, the goals of antitrust regulation expressed in the…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Lewis v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Illinois Brick Co. v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Freeman Industries, LLC v. Eastman Chemical Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2005
- Mothershed v. Justices of the Supreme CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- In Re Digital Music Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2011
- In re Relafen Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2004
- Sickles v. Cabot Corp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2005
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.