12 U.S.C. § 1975
Civil actions by persons injured; jurisdiction and venue; amount of recovery
Any person who is injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in section 1972 of this title may sue therefor in any district court of the United States in which the defendant resides or is found or has an agent, without regard to the amount in controversy, and shall be entitled to recover three times the amount of the damages sustained by him, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (1985).
Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (1985). “1767 , 12 U. S. C. § 1975 . 10. Clayton Antitrust Act, 38 Stat.”
Rebecca Otwell Baggett, Teressa Latrelle Otwell, Frances Otwell Bagby v. First Nat'l Bank of Gainesville, 117 F.3d 1342 (1st Cir. 1997). “§ 1972 (2)(F) & 12 U.S.C. § 1975 (1994). Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant’s alleged misconduct violated the provisions of § 1972(2)(F)(ii), that Plaintiffs lost money as a result, and that Plaintiffs may thus sue under § 1975 for injury in their “property by…”
Indep. Fed'n of Flight Attendants v. Zipes, 491 U.S. 754 (1989). “, Bank Holding Company Act Amendments of 1970, 12 U. S. C. § 1975 ; Clayton Act, 15 U. S.”
Sundance Land Corp., a Washington Corp. v. Cmty. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n Columbia River Serv. Corp., 840 F.2d 653 (1st Cir. 1988). “Thus, the same spectre of duplicative recovery and complex apportionment of damages that was present in Associated General Contractors is present here. We conclude that Sundance’s monetary injury would not meet the standing requirements of section 4 of the Clayton Act.”
Arthur Swerdloff & Louis Swerdloff v. Miami Nat'l Bank, a Nat'l Banking Ass'n, 584 F.2d 54 (5th Cir. 1978). “§ 1972 (3) and whether plaintiffs have standing to bring a private civil action under 12 U.S.C.A. § 1975 . The Bank Holding Company Act prohibits a bank from conditioning credit upon the requirement that “the customer provide some additional credit, property, or service” to the…”
Mid-State Fertilizer Co., Lasley Kimmel, & Maxine Kimmel v. Exch. Nat'l Bank of Chicago, 877 F.2d 1333 (7th Cir. 1989). “Both statutes authorize litigation by “[a]ny person who is injured in his business or property *1335 by reason of anything forbidden in 12 U.S.C. § 1975 ; 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c) (which modifies the language slightly to “by reason of a violation .”
Robert G. McCoy Linda E. McCoy & James A. McCoy v. The Franklin Sav. Ass'n & Mortg. Mgmt. Co., 636 F.2d 172 (7th Cir. 1980). “Plaintiffs appeal from a district court order dismissing, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, their claims under 12 U.S.C. § 1975 and 15 U.S.C. § 1640 alleging violations of the Bank Holding Company Act and the Truth-in-Lending Act respectively.”
Rhett G. Campbell, Tr., Joseph C. Canizaro, Intervenor-Appellant v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 781 F.2d 440 (5th Cir. 1986). “STANDING PER SE UNDER § 1975 12 U.S.C. § 1975 provides, in pertinent part, that: “Any person who is injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in § 1972 of this title may sue therefor in any district court of the United States .”
Gushi Bros. Co. Chuji G. Chutaro Beverly L. Chutaro v. Bank of Guam, 28 F.3d 1535 (9th Cir. 1994). “This sum was trebled pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1975 . 4 The district court entered Judgment on February 26, 1993.”
Hometowne Builders, Inc. v. Atl. Nat'l Bank, 477 F. Supp. 717 (E.D. Va. 1979). “§ 1972 , thereby entitling them to sue for damages under 12 U.S.C. § 1975 , and of 18 U.S.C. § 215 , thereby subjecting defendants to potential civil liability under 12 U.”
Diversified Foods, Inc. v. The First Nat'l Bank of Boston, 985 F.2d 27 (1st Cir. 1993). “12 U.S.C. § 1975 . But it is now settled that there is a presumption in favor of concurrent jurisdiction, so that state courts may entertain federal civil claims as a matter of course “absent provision by Congress to the contrary or disabling incompatibility” between the federal…”
Amerifirst Props., Inc. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. (Receiver for W. Bank--Westheimer), 880 F.2d 821 (1st Cir. 1989). “” 12 U.S.C. § 1975 . The district court dismissed Amerifirst’s claim on the alternative ground that Amerifirst failed to demonstrate that its injuries were a direct consequence of the tying violation, i.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.