15 U.S.C. § 15h

Applicability of parens patriae actions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

Sections 15c, 15d, 15e, 15f, and 15g of this title shall apply in any State, unless such State provides by law for its nonapplicability in such State.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1981–2017 · leading case: Louisiana Ex Rel. Caldwell v. Allstate Ins., 536 F.3d 418 (5th Cir. 2008).
Louisiana Ex Rel. Caldwell v. Allstate Ins., 536 F.3d 418 (5th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “" 15 U.S.C. § 15h. In short, HSRA created a statutory parens patriae action for state attorneys general.”
Heejoon Chung v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 250 F. Supp. 3d 658 (D. Haw. 2017). “480 in accordance with federal cases interpreting similar federal antitrust laws such as 15 U.S.C. § 15h, ... .[such that] the statute of limitations on a HRS Ch.”
Maryland Ex Rel. Sachs v. Mid-Atl. Toyota Distributors, Inc., 525 F. Supp. 1265 (D. Maryland 1981). “Section 15g must be read in conjunction with 15 U.S.C. § 15h, which provides for the applicability of the Act “unless such State provides by law for its nonapplicability in such State.”
Maryland Ex Rel. Sachs v. Mid-Atl. Toyota Distributors, Inc., 541 F. Supp. 62 (D. Maryland 1981). “§ 15c, it would have specifically provided for nonapplicability in light of 15 U.S.C. § 15h, which directs that “this title shall apply in any State, unless such State provides by law for its nonapplicability in such State.”
The State of Texas, as Parens Patriae on Behalf of Nat. Persons Residing in Texas v. The Scott & Fetzer Co. & the Kirby Sales Co., Inc., 709 F.2d 1024 (5th Cir. 1983). “” 15 U.S.C. § 15h. As the legislative history makes apparent, the Act was aimed primarily at enlarging the potential for consumer recovery for antitrust violations by effectively bypassing the burdensome requirements of Rule 23, Fed.”
Clark Oil & Refining Corp. v. Ashcroft, 639 S.W.2d 594 (Mo. 1982). “15 U.S.C. § 15h. The Missouri legislature has passed no such law, but it has not passed specific enabling legislation, either.”
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mid-Atl. Toyota Distributors, Inc., 704 F.2d 125 (4th Cir. 1983). “As the legislative history makes apparent, see H.”
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.