15 U.S.C. § 13c
Exemption of non-profit institutions from price discrimination provisions
Nothing in the Act approved
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35
cases, 1939–2017 · leading case: Jefferson Cnty. Pharm. Ass'n, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 460 U.S. 150 (1983).
Jefferson Cnty. Pharm. Ass'n, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 460 U.S. 150 (1983). “Petitioner *153 also alleges that the price discrimination is not exempted from the proscriptions of the Act by 15 U. S. C. § 13c. [3] Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that state purchases [4] are exempt as a matter of law from the sanctions of § 2.”
Abbott Labs. v. Portland Retail Druggists Assn., Inc., 425 U.S. 1 (1976). “" 15 U. S. C. § 13c. [1] This case concerns nonprofit hospitals' purchases of products at favored prices from pharmaceutical companies.”
Jefferson Cnty. Pharm. Ass'n, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 656 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1981). “§ 13 , drug purchases by nonprofit hospitals which were later dispensed by the hospital pharmacies (1) to staff, employees, and students of the hospital (other than for the personal use of themselves or of their dependents), (2) to “walk-in” customers, or (3) as refills to…”
Portland Retail Druggists Ass'n, Etc. v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 662 F.2d 641 (9th Cir. 1981). “§ 1012 (b); 1 (2) Appellants’ Robinson-Patman cause of action failed to state a claim because Kaiser is exempt from liability pursuant to the Robinson-Patman Price Discrimination Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13c; (3) Appellants’ attempt to monopolize cause of action failed to state a claim;…”
United States of Am. v. Louie A. Ferro, Jr. Louie A. Ferro, Sr. Wilbur Swift Kevin D. Staley, 252 F.3d 964 (8th Cir. 2001). “The Non-Profit Institutions Act exempts from the Robinson-Patman Act goods purchased “for their own use by schools, colleges, universities, public libraries, churches, hospitals, and charitable institutions not operated for profit.”
United States v. James Leon Stewart, Robert Preston Fails, 872 F.2d 957 (10th Cir. 1989). “That Act provides an exemption from the price discrimination provisions of the antitrust laws for “purchases of their supplies for their own use by.”
Burge v. Bryant Pub. Sch. Dist. of Saline Cnty., 520 F. Supp. 328 (E.D. Ark. 1980). “As an affirmative defense to these allegations, the defendants allege that the Nonprofit Institutions Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13c exempts them from application of the Robinson-Patman Act.”
Bridges v. MacLean-Stevens Studios, Inc., 201 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2000). “Appellees counter that (1) appellants do not have antitrust standing because they have not suffered an antitrust injury; (2) commercial bribery is not a cognizable claim under § 13(c); (3) the commissions paid to the schools in this case do not cross the “seller-buyer line” as…”
Park Med. Pharmacy v. San Diego Orthopedic Assocs. Med. Grp., Inc., 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5171 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). “gram]; 4193 [prohibiting a surgical clinic from charging a professional dispensing fee that may be authorized under the Medi-Cal program, offering drugs for sale or charging or billing for professional services for the dispensing or administering of drugs]; 4380 [restricting the…”
Drug Mart Pharmacy Corp. v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 472 F. Supp. 2d 385 (E.D.N.Y 2007). “Furthermore, the defendants’ argument would, in effect, confer exemptions upon for-profit insurers that are explicitly rejected by the Nonprofit Institutions Act (“NIA”).”
White & White, Inc. v. Am. Hosp. Supply Corp., 540 F. Supp. 951 (W.D. Mich. 1982). “The Nonprofit Institutions Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13c, provides that: “Nothing in sections 13 to 13b and 21a of this title, shall apply to purchases of their supplies for their own use by schools, colleges, universities, public libraries, churches, hospitals, and charitable…”
Bridges v. MacLean-Stevens Studios, Inc., 35 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D. Me. 1998). “Defendants also assert that they are shielded from liability by the Nonprofit Institutions Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13c (1994). The Court rejects Defendants’ suggestion that commissions paid to schools are for services rendered by those schools.”
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.