Difference between revisions of "Antitrust injury"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(improved) |
DavidB4-bot (talk | contribs) (→top: clean up & uniformity) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
An overview of antitrust injury is provided at ''Daniel v. Am. Bd. of Emergency Med.'', 428 F.3d 408, 441 (2d Cir. 2005). | An overview of antitrust injury is provided at ''Daniel v. Am. Bd. of Emergency Med.'', 428 F.3d 408, 441 (2d Cir. 2005). | ||
| − | [[Category: | + | [[Category:Antitrust]] |
Revision as of 01:50, July 13, 2016
Antitrust injury is a concept in antitrust law that limits standing to those who have suffered an "injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants' acts unlawful." Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 489 (1977). "It should, in short, be 'the type of loss that the claimed violations… would be likely to cause.'" Id. (quoting Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, 395 U.S. at 125.).
An overview of antitrust injury is provided at Daniel v. Am. Bd. of Emergency Med., 428 F.3d 408, 441 (2d Cir. 2005).