Legal Opinion
Lorix v. Crompton Corp.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided August 2, 2007No. A05-2148PublishedCited by 53 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ANDERSON, G. BARRY, Justice.
Plaintiff, a consumer, brought a class action lawsuit under Minnesota antitrust law alleging that she paid more for tires as a result of defendants’ conspiracy to fix the prices of rubber-processing chemicals. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss on the pleadings for lack of standing, and the court of appeals affirmed. We reverse and hold that the plaintiff has standing to sue under Minn. Stat. § 325D.57 (2006).
In this antitrust class action, Plaintiff Diane Lorix alleges that defendants Crompton Corporation, Uniroyal Chemical Company,…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Sierra Club v. MortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of CarpentersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by53 opinions
- Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2011
- In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litig.District Court, E.D. Illinois · 2017
- In Re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2007
- In Re Dynamic Random Access Memory (Dram) Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2008
- Krueger v. Zeman Construction Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.