15 U.S.C. § 15d
Measurement of damages
In any action under section 15c(a)(1) of this title, in which there has been a determination that a defendant agreed to fix prices in violation of sections 1 to 7 of this title, damages may be proved and assessed in the aggregate by statistical or sampling methods, by the computation of illegal overcharges, or by such other reasonable system of estimating aggregate damages as the court in its discretion may permit without the necessity of separately proving the individual claim of, or amount of damage to, persons on whose behalf the suit was brought.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1981–2014 · leading case: Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., 233 P.3d 1066 (Cal. 2010).
Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., 233 P.3d 1066 (Cal. 2010). “) The remedial provisions of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act focused on achieving full disgorgement of all illegal antitrust profits, using fluid recovery and the cy pres doctrine if necessary, because “[t]he only alternative—retention of the profits by the adjudicated wrongdoer—is…”
In re Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Anti-Trust Litig., 216 F.R.D. 197 (D. Me. 2003). “The Clayton Act does allow some flexibility in proving damages against a defendant who has agreed to fix prices ("by statistical or sampling methods, by the computation of alleged overcharges, or by such other reasonable system of estimating aggregate damages as the court in its…”
Maryland Ex Rel. Sachs v. Mid-Atl. Toyota Distributors, Inc., 525 F. Supp. 1265 (D. Md. 1981). “These contentions involve the same issues *1285 concerning governmental plaintiffs’ proof at trial and defendants’ opportunity to contest the proof, and will be discussed together.”
Bruno v. Superior Court, 127 Cal. App. 3d 120 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981). “(15 U.S.C. §§ 15d, 15c(a)(l).) Using very similar language, the Cartwright Act also permits aggregate damage calculation in price fixing cases, but expressly allows that calculation to be made “[i]n any action under this chapter [the entire Cartwright Act].”
Long v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 761 F. Supp. 1320 (N.D. Ill. 1991). “1383 , *1325 1395, enacting 15 U.S.C. § 15d; Developments In The Law — Class Actions, 89 Harv.”
In Re State of Illinois Petition to Inspect & Copy Grand Jury Materials. Appeal of State of Illinois, 659 F.2d 800 (7th Cir. 1981). “It solved the chief problem in managing such actions by permitting damages to be computed through aggregation techniques, see 15 U.S.C. § 15d. Discovery problems were not of apparent concern to the draftsmen of the par-ens patriae provisions.”
Maryland Ex Rel. Sachs v. Mid-Atl. Toyota Distributors, Inc., 560 F. Supp. 760 (D. Md. 1983). “15 U.S.C. § 15d (1976). The above authorities may be readily applied to the present facts.”
In Re Grand Jury Investigation of Cuisinarts, Inc., 516 F. Supp. 1008 (D. Conn. 1981). “It solved the chief problem in managing such actions by permitting damages to be computed through aggregation techniques, see 15 U.S.C. § 15d. Discovery problems were not of apparent concern to the draftsmen of the parens patriae provisions.”
Texas v. Penguin Grp. (USA) Inc., 14 F. Supp. 3d 525 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). “It enacted notice and opt-out provisions to ensure that no consumer is forced to be bound by any decision should he or she desire to sue independently.”
United States v. Cuisinarts, Inc., 665 F.2d 24 (2d Cir. 1981). “See 15 U.S.C. § 15d. As Judge Cabranes correctly pointed out, discovery issues were not of pressing moment to the draftsmen.”
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.