15 U.S.C. § 22
District in which to sue corporation
Any suit, action, or proceeding under the antitrust laws against a corporation may be brought not only in the judicial district whereof it is an inhabitant, but also in any district wherein it may be found or transacts business; and all process in such cases may be served in the district of which it is an inhabitant, or wherever it may be found.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 593
cases (53 in the last 5 years), 1931–2026 · leading case: Myers v. Am. Dental Ass'n, 695 F.2d 716 (3rd Cir. 1982).
Myers v. Am. Dental Ass'n, 695 F.2d 716 (3rd Cir. 1982). “In addition, Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 22 , provides that an action against a corporation under the antitrust laws may be brought “not only in the judicial district whereof it is an inhabitant, but also in any district wherein it may be found or transacts…”
Daniel v. Am. Bd. of Emergency Med., 428 F.3d 408 (2d Cir. 2005). “15 U.S.C. § 22 . As this language makes plain, the section consists of two parts.”
Go-Video, Inc. v. Akai Elec. Co., Ltd., & Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., 885 F.2d 1406 (9th Cir. 1989). “REINHARDT, Circuit Judge: This is an interlocutory appeal from an order of the District Court for the District of Arizona in which we must decide two related questions: first, whether an antitrust plaintiff who serves process pursuant to the provisions of § 12 of the Clayton…”
BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017). “, 15 U.S.C. § 22 (Clayton Act provision stating that "all process in [cases against a corporation arising under federal antitrust laws] may be served in the district of which [the defendant] is an inhabitant, or wherever [the defendant] may be found"); § 53(a) (under Federal…”
Academy of Ambulatory Foot Surgery v. Am. Podiatry Ass'n, 516 F. Supp. 378 (S.D.N.Y. 1981). “The applicable venue provision is 15 U.S.C. § 22 , which provides: Any suit, action, or proceeding under the antitrust laws against a corporation may be brought not only in the judicial district whereof it is an inhabitant, but also in any district wherein it may be found or…”
Daniel v. Am. Bd. of Emergency Med., 988 F. Supp. 127 (W.D.N.Y. 1997). “Under 15 U.S.C. § 22 : Any suit, action or proceeding under the antitrust laws against a corporation may be brought not only in the judicial district whereof it is an inhabitant, but also in any district wherein it may be found or transacts business; and all process in such…”
Carrier Corp. v. Outokumpu Oyj, 673 F.3d 430 (6th Cir. 2012). “For Sherman Act claims, 15 U.S.C. § 22 authorizes service of process over an antitrust defendant “wherever it may be found.”
Indus. Inv. Dev. Corp. v. Mitsui & Co., Ltd., 671 F.2d 876 (5th Cir. 1982). “The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the venue provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 22 17 leave no room for judicial discretion to apply the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens.”
Georgia v. Pennsylvania R.R., 324 U.S. 439 (1945). “12 of the Clayton Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 22 ) provides that "Any suit, action, or proceeding under the antitrust laws against a corporation may be brought not only in the judicial district whereof it is an inhabitant, but also in any district wherein it may be found or transacts…”
Delong Equip. Co. v. Washington Mills Abrasive Co., 840 F.2d 843 (11th Cir. 1988). “” We affirm the district court’s holding that service of process on BCS was authorized.”
Dennis v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 343 F. Supp. 3d 122 (S.D. Ill. 2018). “Although the Foreign Defendants challenge also the statutory basis for plaintiffs' assertion of conspiracy jurisdiction, the Court need not reach this question because, as discussed below, plaintiffs have failed to make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction under a conspiracy…”
In Re Chicken Antitrust Litig., 407 F. Supp. 1285 (N.D. Ga. 1975). “by reason of the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found or has an agent Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 22 [hereinafter sometimes referred to as “§ 22”] deals with venue for…”
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.