12 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Baseball at Trotwood, LLC v. Dayton Professional Baseball Club, LLCgreen2 sentences2017Baseball Club, LLC, 113 F.Supp.2d 1164, 1172 (S.D.Ohio 1999). {¶ 20} The trial court found that Clark Dietrich failed to prove harm to competition or antitrust injury and therefore failed to prove all the elements of the Valentine Act claim. 2007Baseball Club, LLC (S.D.Ohio W.D. 1999), 113 F.Supp.2d 1164 , 1172 {¶ 85} It is undisputed that, even before the Ladds cancelled Island Express's lease, the Rocket was losing money. 6 In addition, the record shows that the Jet Express's biggest competitor was Miller, not the Rocket. | 1 | 2 |
Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences2017This rule, known as the " Illinois Brick rule" or the "direct-purchaser requirement," limits who can bring an antitrust claim to that of "the injured party-the retailer who contracted directly with the manufacturer and paid the overcharge." Id . at ¶ 10 ; see McCarthy v. Recordex Service, Inc. , 80 F.3d 842 , 847-848 (3d Cir. 1996) ("Recognizing that allowing an indirect purchaser to assert an antitrust claim for the portion of an overcharge 'passed on' to the indirect purchaser would create an intractable problem of tracing and apportioning damages between different purchasers in the chain of 2005Microsoft argues that since Ohio follows federal antitrust law, and since Illinois Brick, 431 U.S. 720 , 97 S.Ct. 2061 , 52 L.Ed.2d 707 , prohibits indirect purchasers from asserting federal antitrust claims, Johnson — who never purchased any product directly from Microsoft — should not be able to maintain an Ohio Valentine Act claim. | 1 | 2 |
McCARTHY v. RECORDEX SERVICE, INC.green1 sentence2017This rule, known as the " Illinois Brick rule" or the "direct-purchaser requirement," limits who can bring an antitrust claim to that of "the injured party-the retailer who contracted directly with the manufacturer and paid the overcharge." Id . at ¶ 10 ; see McCarthy v. Recordex Service, Inc. , 80 F.3d 842 , 847-848 (3d Cir. 1996) ("Recognizing that allowing an indirect purchaser to assert an antitrust claim for the portion of an overcharge 'passed on' to the indirect purchaser would create an intractable problem of tracing and apportioning damages between different purchasers in the chain of | 1 | 1 |
Pamela Brennan v. Concord Efs, Inc.green1 sentence2017This rule, known as the " Illinois Brick rule" or the "direct-purchaser requirement," limits who can bring an antitrust claim to that of "the injured party-the retailer who contracted directly with the manufacturer and paid the overcharge." Id . at ¶ 10 ; see McCarthy v. Recordex Service, Inc. , 80 F.3d 842 , 847-848 (3d Cir. 1996) ("Recognizing that allowing an indirect purchaser to assert an antitrust claim for the portion of an overcharge 'passed on' to the indirect purchaser would create an intractable problem of tracing and apportioning damages between different purchasers in the chain of | 1 | 1 |
Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc.green2 sentences2012Presidents Conference v.] Noerr [Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 , 81 S.Ct. 523 , 5 L.Ed.2d 464 (1961) (“Noerr- Pennington Doctrine”)] and an antitrust claim premised on the sham exception must fail. 2012Presidents Conference v.] Noerr [Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 , 81 S.Ct. 523 , 5 L.Ed.2d 464 (1961) (“Noerr- Pennington Doctrine”)] and an antitrust claim premised on the sham exception must fail. | 1 | 1 |
cluster 783185green1 sentence2006If it could, it is likely outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.” Id. at 395, citing Ford v. NYLCare Health Plans of Gulf Coast, Inc. (C.A.5, 1998), 141 F.3d 243, 250-251 . {¶ 7} Applying Fazio, the appellate court concluded that “the doctors’ antitrust claim could be maintained without reference to their individual provider agreements.” 155 Ohio App.3d 310 , 2003-Ohio-6194 , 800 N.E.2d 1185, ¶ 5 . | 1 | 1 |
cluster 333990green1 sentence1993Ungar v. Dunkin’ Donuts of Am., Inc., 531 F.2d at 1226. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Academy of Medicine v. Aetna Health, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018As this court noted, the "express elements of an antitrust claim do not depend, as a matter of law, on the provider agreements between the individual doctors and HMOs." Academy of Medicine , 155 Ohio App.3d 310 , 2003-Ohio-6194 , 800 N.E.2d 1185 , at ¶ 5. {¶ 55} Similarly, in Arnold , the employee who sued was in a position to be sexually assaulted by her manager because she was an employee and on the premises. 2018As this court noted, the "express elements of an antitrust claim do not depend, as a matter of law, on the provider agreements between the individual doctors and HMOs." Academy of Medicine , 155 Ohio App.3d 310 , 2003-Ohio-6194 , 800 N.E.2d 1185 , at ¶ 5. {¶ 55} Similarly, in Arnold , the employee who sued was in a position to be sexually assaulted by her manager because she was an employee and on the premises. | 2 | 2006–2018 |
National Hockey League Players' Association and Anthony Aquino v. Plymouth Whalers Hockey Club
green
1 sentence2024Id., citing Baseball at Trotwood, LLC v. Dayton Prof. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover
green
1 sentence2020Id. at 503 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Johnson v. Microsoft Corp.
green
1 sentence2019Chapter 1331 (Antitrust), prior to the filing of any complaint alleging an antitrust violation."); Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 106 Ohio St.3d 278 , 2005-Ohio-4985 , ¶ 12. {¶ 11} In this case, appellant discusses his appearance at the hearing before the trial court magistrate on April 9, 2018, and argues that his submittal of unrebutted affidavits "stand[] as truth in commerce." (Appellant's Brief at 11.) Appellant contends appellee failed to present "alleged signed contracts" subjecting appellant to the "jurisdiction, rules, statutes, and state codes of the [FCCSEA]" and that appellee "signed | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Consolidated Metal Products, Inc. v. American Petroleum Institute
green
1 sentence2017In Consolidated Metal Products, Inc. v. American Petroleum Institute, 846 F.2d 284 (5th Cir.1988), a manufacturer of oil well equipment sued the American Petroleum Institute (API), alleging the API excluded it from the market by delaying trade standard certification to its equipment. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Ford v. NYLCare Health Plans of the Gulf Coast, Inc.
green
1 sentence2006If it could, it is likely outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.” Id. at 395, citing Ford v. NYLCare Health Plans of Gulf Coast, Inc. (C.A.5, 1998), 141 F.3d 243, 250-251 . {¶ 7} Applying Fazio, the appellate court concluded that “the doctors’ antitrust claim could be maintained without reference to their individual provider agreements.” 155 Ohio App.3d 310 , 2003-Ohio-6194 , 800 N.E.2d 1185, ¶ 5 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Imperial Construction Management Corp. v. Laborers International Union of North America Local 96
green
1 sentence2002TIO concludes its argument with the proposition that AMS effectively waived any res judicata challenge by "acquiescing" to the antitrust claim, citing Imperial Construction Management v. International Local 96 (1990), 729 F. Supp. 1199 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Grava v. Parkman Township
green
2 sentences2002Grava , supra , defines "transaction" as "a common nucleus of operative facts." Id. at 382 , quoting 1 Restatement of the Law 2d, Judgments (1982), 198-199, Section 24, comment b. 2002Grava , supra , defines "transaction" as "a common nucleus of operative facts." Id. at 382 , quoting 1 Restatement of the Law 2d, Judgments (1982), 198-199, Section 24, comment b. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Ameigh v. Baycliffs Corp.
green
2 sentences2002TIO quotes the following from Ameigh v. Baycliffs Corp . (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 247 , 250 , 690 N.E.2d 872 : "Where the judgment of a court is not dispositive on issues which a party later seeks to litigate, res judicata is not applicable. 2002TIO quotes the following from Ameigh v. Baycliffs Corp . (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 247 , 250 , 690 N.E.2d 872 : "Where the judgment of a court is not dispositive on issues which a party later seeks to litigate, res judicata is not applicable. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.