Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Hanover 3201 Realty, LLC v. Village Supermarkets, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided November 12, 2015No. 14-4183Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partAmbro, Circuit Judge
I respectfully disagree with my colleagues’ view that Hanover 3201 Realty has suffered antitrust injury, a necessary component of antitrust standing. In my view, because the anticompetitive effects of Village Supermarkets’ actions (as opposed to the damages sustained directly from any tort) do not hurt Hanover, a landlord and not a player in the market for full-service supermarkets, it lacks antitrust standing to bring this suit.
However, I recognize that my colleagues’ view of antitrust standing is, by virtue of their ruling, the holding of our Court and now the law of this Circuit. In this…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- United States v. BookerSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Seminole Tribe of Florida v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of CarpentersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.