Laughlin v. Evanston Hospital
Illinois Supreme Court
1ConcurrenceJustice Clark
The majority has determined that the plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a cause of action both under the lilinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (the Consumer Fraud Act) and the Illinois Antitrust Act. For the following reasons, I concur.
CONSUMER FRAUD COUNT
Count I of plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that the defendants’ practice of granting rebates to Blue Cross and no other third-party payor constitutes an “unfair method of competition” in violation of section 2 of the Consumer Fraud Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 121½, par. 261 et seq.). The majority has rejected this…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, Appts. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Board of Trade of Chicago v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Business Electronics Corp. v. Sharp Electronics Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Federal Trade Commission v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Havoco of America, Ltd. v. Shell Oil CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1980
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.