Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc.
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WERDEGAR, J.
When a group of companies conspires to fix prices at higher than a competitive level, the resulting overcharge is paid in the first instance by the direct purchaser of the cartel’s goods. In markets where the direct purchaser is not also the ultimate purchaser, but an intermediary between the cartel and the consumer (the indirect purchaser), several questions arise: First, who should be permitted to sue for price fixing, the direct purchaser, the indirect purchaser, or both? Second, how should damages be allocated? Should an antitrust conspirator be permitted to raise as a…
2Cases cited47 opinions
- Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of CarpentersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
- Illinois Brick Co. v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.California Supreme Court · 1999
- Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by95 opinions
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
- Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2013
- McGill v. Citibank, N.A.California Supreme Court · 2017
- Antonio Hinojos v. Kohl's CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- Jenkins v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.California Court of Appeal · 2013
90 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.