15 U.S.C. § 15e
Distribution of damages
Injuries sustained prior to
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1977–2003 · leading case: Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977).
Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977). “deposited with the State as general revenues,” Clayton Act §4E(2), 15 U. S. C. § 15e (2) (1976 ed.), enacted by the 1976 Act, or “for some public purposes benefiting, as closely as possible, the class of injured persons,” such as reducing the price of the overcharged goods in…”
Maryland Ex Rel. Sachs v. Mid-Atl. Toyota Distributors, Inc., 525 F. Supp. 1265 (D. Maryland 1981). “APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE AND JUST COMPENSATION CLAUSE Finally, defendants challenge the distribution of damages provision, 15 U.S.C. § 15e, as an unconstitutional Congressional appointment of state attorneys general to enforce federal law by collecting a civil penalty to be deposited…”
Boyle v. Giral, 820 A.2d 561 (D.C. 2003). “There, the court faced language virtually identical to § 28-A507(b)(2)(B) in construing a provision of the federal antitrust law, 15 U.S.C. § 15e. As the court stated in Reebok: Section 15e provides that the settlement proceeds shall be distributed in such manner as the district…”
Bruno v. Superior Court, 127 Cal. App. 3d 120 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981). “) Under the Clayton Act, however, subject to the requirement that each person have a reasonable opportunity to secure his appropriate portion, the monetary relief shall “(1) be distributed in such manner as the district court in its discretion may authorize; or [¶] (2) be deemed…”
In re Oracle Sec. Litig., 132 F.R.D. 538 (N.D. Cal. 1990). “" 15 U.S.C. § 15e. . The Abbey bid may also be said to do so by its anti-windfall provision, but because its terms are not specified, the curative effect is essentially speculative.”
In Re Grand Jury Investigation of Cuisinarts, Inc., 516 F. Supp. 1008 (D. Conn. 1981). “Discovery problems were not of apparent concern to the draftsmen of the parens patriae provisions. With respect to discovery issues, the draftsmen noted only that the individual consumer lacked the investigative resources to disclose a possible conspiracy in violation of the…”
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mid-Atl. Toyota Distributors, Inc., 704 F.2d 125 (4th Cir. 1983). “It would seem beyond question that all the jurisdictions involved in this litigation have vested their respective attorneys general with the authority to maintain antitrust actions in the federal courts that could, quite conceivably, result in substantial monetary awards to…”
New York ex rel. Vacco v. Reebok Int'l Ltd., 903 F. Supp. 532 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). “15 U.S.C. § 15e provides: Monetary relief recovered in an action under 15c(a)(l) of this title shall— (1) be distributed in such manner as the district court in its discretion may authorize; or (2) be deemed a civil penalty by the court and deposited with the State as general…”
Maryland ex rel. Burch v. Jack Foley Realty, Inc., 452 F. Supp. 54 (D. Maryland 1978). “Title III of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15e et seq., added to the Clayton Act certain provisions allowing state attorneys general to bring parens patriae actions for the recovery of damages on behalf of their states’ natural citizens where those citizens were injured by violations of…”
State of New York by Vacco v. Reebok Intern. Ltd., 903 F. Supp. 532 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). “[2] 15 U.S.C. § 15e provides: Monetary relief recovered in an action under 15c(a)(1) of this title shall (1) be distributed in such manner as the district court in its discretion may authorize; or (2) be deemed a civil penalty by the court and deposited with the State as…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 15e(2) — 2 cases
Maryland Ex Rel. Sachs v. Mid-Atl. Toyota Distributors, Inc., 525 F. Supp. 1265 (D. Maryland 1981). “APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE AND JUST COMPENSATION CLAUSE Finally, defendants challenge the distribution of damages provision, 15 U.S.C. § 15e, as an unconstitutional Congressional appointment of state attorneys general to enforce federal law by collecting a civil penalty to be deposited…”
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mid-Atl. Toyota Distributors, Inc., 704 F.2d 125 (4th Cir. 1983). “It would seem beyond question that all the jurisdictions involved in this litigation have vested their respective attorneys general with the authority to maintain antitrust actions in the federal courts that could, quite conceivably, result in substantial monetary awards to…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 15e(a) — 1 case
In Re Grand Jury Investigation of Cuisinarts, Inc., 516 F. Supp. 1008 (D. Conn. 1981). “Discovery problems were not of apparent concern to the draftsmen of the parens patriae provisions. With respect to discovery issues, the draftsmen noted only that the individual consumer lacked the investigative resources to disclose a possible conspiracy in violation of the…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 15e(a)(1) — 1 case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mid-Atl. Toyota Distributors, Inc., 704 F.2d 125 (4th Cir. 1983). “It would seem beyond question that all the jurisdictions involved in this litigation have vested their respective attorneys general with the authority to maintain antitrust actions in the federal courts that could, quite conceivably, result in substantial monetary awards to…”
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.