Whitehall Co. v. Merrimack Valley Distributing Co.
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the CourtMcHugh, J.
Reduced to essentials, the question in this case is whether G. L. c. 93A, § 11, allows the plaintiff, a liquor wholesaler, to recover damages from a competing wholesaler who allegedly violated the price discrimination provisions of G. L. c. 138, § 25A, and from a retailer who allegedly sought and benefited from the discrimination. A judge in the Superior Court said “no,” and allowed the defendants’ motion to dismiss. We agree that, in this case, the answer is “no,” although we do *854so for reasons different from those upon which the motion judge relied. Consequently, we affirm the judgment…
2Cases cited46 opinions
- Parker v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Federal Trade Commission v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Federal Trade Commission v. Morton Salt Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Markle v. HSBC Mortgage Corp. (USA)District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2011
- Drakopoulos v. U.S. Bank National Ass'nMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2013
- Morris v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2011
- Anoush Cab, Inc. v. Uber Tech. Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2021
- Berenson v. National Financial Services, LLCDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2005
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.