15 U.S.C. § 15b
Limitation of actions
Any action to enforce any cause of action under section 15, 15a, or 15c of this title shall be forever barred unless commenced within four years after the cause of action accrued. No cause of action barred under existing law on the effective date of this Act shall be revived by this Act.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 783
cases (72 in the last 5 years), 1956–2026 · leading case: Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc.
Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc. (1987)
“15 U. S. C. § 15b. This is especially true given the lack of any satisfactory state law analogue to RICO.”
Kwai Wong v. David Beebe (2013)
“For example, the 1955 Clayton Act Amendments provided that any action to enforce a right under §§ 15, 15a, and 15c of the Act “shall be forever barred unless commenced within four years after the cause of action accrued.”
Hartig Drug Co. v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. (2017)
“” 15 U.S.C. § 15b. “Generally, the period commences on the date the cause of action accrues, that being, the date on which the wrongdoer commits an act that injures the business of another.”
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc. (1982)
“El Paso argued that because the defendants received benefits under the contract in the form of payments for deliveries of steel within the limitations period, the suit was not barred by 15 U.S.C. § 15b. Our examination of the contract involved in El Paso revealed that the rights…”
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (1971)
“The motion sought leave to assert the defenses of limitations and release; the claim was that part or all of the damages *324 awarded to Zenith for the four years 1959-1963 were caused by pre-1959 conduct and to that extent were barred by the statute of limitations, 15 U. S. C.…”
Greyhound Corp. v. Mt. Hood Stages, Inc. (1978)
“283 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 15b (1976 ed.). It provides: "Any action to enforce any cause of action under sections 15, 15a, or 15c of this title shall be forever barred unless commenced within four years after the cause of action accrued.”
In Re Cotton Yarn Antitrust Litigation (2007)
“The Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 15b (West 1997), establishes a four-year limitations period in which to bring a claim for a violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.”
California Public Employees' Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc. (2017)
“See 15 U.S.C. § 15b. The Court of Appeals reversed, permitting intervention.”
Klehr v. A. O. Smith Corp. (1997)
“283 , and as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 15bthe statute of limitations that governs private civil antitrust actions seeking treble damages.”
In Re Copper Antitrust Litigation (2006)
“See 15 U.S.C. § 15b. It came to the same conclusion for South-wire’s claims against Sumitomo and Global.”
Rundgren v. Bank of New York Mellon (2011)
“Although no Hawaii cases had addressed the issue, McDevitt came to this conclusion by relying on federal law that adopted the occurrence rule in interpreting the four-year statute of limitations provision found in 15 U.”
GO Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (2007)
“Microsoft met GO's federal complaint with a motion to dismiss or (in the alternative) for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds. The merits of GO's antitrust allegations were never at issue in the district court; argument centered wholly on the limitations period.”
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.