Legal Opinion
State v. Daicel Chemical Industries, Ltd.
Idaho Supreme Court
Decided January 28, 2005No. 30379PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
EISMANN, Justice.
The State appeals from a judgment dismissing its complaint on the ground that the Idaho Competition Act enacted in 2000 cannot be applied retroactively to create liability based upon conduct that occurred years before the Act was adopted. It also appeals the district court’s order denying its motion to file an amended complaint to allege a claim under the Idaho Consumer Protection Act on the ground that the State’s allegations of price fixing are not covered by that Act. We affirm the district court.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Defendants are all commercial producers of…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Illinois Brick Co. v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Federal Trade Commission v. Cement InstituteSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Federal Trade Commission v. Pacific States Paper Trade Ass'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Pope v. Intermountain Gas Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1982
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Ticor Title Co. v. StanionIdaho Supreme Court · 2007
- In Re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2007
- Sheet Metal Workers Local 441 Health & Welfare Plan v. Glaxosmithkline, PLCDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2010
- In Re Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2008
- Meijer, Inc. v. Ferring B.V.District Court, S.D. New York · 2012
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.