15 U.S.C. § 26

Injunctive relief for private parties; exception; costs

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

Any person, firm, corporation, or association shall be entitled to sue for and have injunctive relief, in any court of the United States having jurisdiction over the parties, against threatened loss or damage by a violation of the antitrust laws, including sections 13, 14, 18, and 19 of this title, when and under the same conditions and principles as injunctive relief against threatened conduct that will cause loss or damage is granted by courts of equity, under the rules governing such proceedings, and upon the execution of proper bond against damages for an injunction improvidently granted and a showing that the danger of irreparable loss or damage is immediate, a preliminary injunction may issue: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to entitle any person, firm, corporation, or association, except the United States, to bring suit for injunctive relief against any common carrier subject to the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board under subtitle IV of title 49. In any action under this section in which the plaintiff substantially prevails, the court shall award the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, to such plaintiff.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1,032 cases (66 in the last 5 years), 1928–2026 · leading case: Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc. (1986) scotus · cites it 13× “737 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 26 , private parties "threatened [with] loss or damage by a violation of the antitrust laws" may seek injunctive relief.”

Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc. (2011) ca3 · cites it 6× “Finally, the Panel rejected the District Court’s certification of the Indirect Purchaser Class under Rule 23(b)(2) for the purpose of awarding injunctive relief under § 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 26 . Relying upon expert reports written to identify a methodology for…”

Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp. (1977) scotus · cites it 8× “" The court further found that collection efforts would eliminate two of the three plaintiffs and thus that the injunction was necessary to protect the jurisdiction of the court, within the meaning of that exception to § 2283.”

In Re New Motor Vehicles Can. Export Anti. Lit. (2008) ca1 · cites it 6× “" 15 U.S.C. § 26 ; see also Cargill, Inc. v.”

ZF Meritor LLC v. Eaton Corporation (2012) ca3 · cites it 4× “§ 15 , and 13 injunctive relief, pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 26 . On February 17, 2009, Plaintiffs‘ expert, Dr.”

Steves and Sons, Inc. v. Jeld-Wen, Inc. (2021) ca4 · cites it 4× “§ 15 with 15 U.S.C. § 26 ). We also vacate the district court’s entry of judgment for the intervenors in the trade-secrets case because JELD-WEN brought no claims against them.”

Cia. Petrolera Caribe, Inc. v. Arco Caribbean, Inc. (1985) ca1 · cites it 7× “Although the complaint originally requested both damages and injunctive relief, Caribe abandoned the request for damages in the district court and asked only for an injunctive remedy, particularly divestiture, pursuant to § 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 26 . Caribe…”

Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. (2008) ca9 · cites it 3× “§ 1 , and Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 26 , for antitrust violations, alleging ap-pellees conspired with each other to set the fees charged to merchants, such as appellants, for payment of credit card sales.”

Georgia v. Pennsylvania Railroad (1945) scotus · cites it 7× “737 , 15 U.S.C. § 26 . See Central Transfer Co.”

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (1969) scotus · cites it 4× “This was unsound, for § 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. § 26 , which was enacted by the Congress to make available equitable remedies previously denied private parties, invokes traditional principles of equity and authorizes injunctive relief upon the demonstration of…”

Blackwelder Furniture Company of Statesville, Inc. v. Seilig Manufacturing Company, Inc. (1977) ca4 · cites it 3× “15 U.S.C. § 26 . B. We view the trial court’s finding that Blaekwelder will suffer no irreparable harm (on the basis that any injury to it would be readily calculable and collectible) as clearly erroneous.”

Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters (1983) scotus · cites it 2× “[5] Plaintiffs do not seek injunctive relief under § 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. § 26 , and they do not ask us to consider whether they have standing to request such relief.”

Show all 1,032 citing cases →

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.