15 U.S.C. § 35

Recovery of damages, etc., for antitrust violations from any local government, or official or employee thereof acting in an official capacity

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

(a) Prohibition in general

No damages, interest on damages, costs, or attorney’s fees may be recovered under section 4, 4A, or 4C of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 15, 15a, or 15c) from any local government, or official or employee thereof acting in an official capacity.

(b) Preconditions for attachment of prohibition; prima facie evidence for nonapplication of prohibition

Subsection (a) shall not apply to cases commenced before the effective date of this Act unless the defendant establishes and the court determines, in light of all the circumstances, including the stage of litigation and the availability of alternative relief under the Clayton Act, that it would be inequitable not to apply this subsection to a pending case. In consideration of this section, existence of a jury verdict, district court judgment, or any stage of litigation subsequent thereto, shall be deemed to be prima facie evidence that subsection (a) shall not apply.

(Pub. L. 98–544, § 3, Oct. 24, 1984, 98 Stat. 2750.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

For the effective date of this Act, referred to in subsec. (b), see Effective Date note below.

The Clayton Act, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b), is act Oct. 15, 1914, ch. 323, 38 Stat. 730, which is classified generally to sections 12, 13, 14 to 19, 21, and 22 to 27 of this title and to sections 52 and 53 of Title 29, Labor. For further details and complete classification of this Act to the Code, see References in Text note set out under section 12 of this title and Tables.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective thirty days before Oct. 24, 1984, see section 6 of Pub. L. 98–544, set out as a note under section 34 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 90 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1934–2026 · leading case: Opdyke Inv. Co. v. City of Detroit, 883 F.2d 1265 (6th Cir. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Opdyke Inv. Co. v. City of Detroit, 883 F.2d 1265 (6th Cir. 1989). · cites it 7× “” Subsection 35(b) reads thus: “Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to cases commenced before the effective date of this Act unless the defendant establishes and the court determines, in light of all the circumstances, including the stage of litigation and the *1269…”

Daniel v. Am. Bd. of Emergency Med., 988 F. Supp. 127 (W.D.N.Y. 1997). · cites it 6× “62 15 U.S.C. § 35 (a). “Congress prohibited the recovery of antitrust damages against local governments based on the policy that ‘tax payers should not be forced to bear the treble damage remedies recoverable from local governments under extant law, and on the belief that local…”

Tremont Pub. Advisors, LLC v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Auth., 333 Conn. 672 (Conn. 2019). · cites it 3× “le supple- mental briefs addressing the following issues: (1) ‘‘Whether the court should construe [the defendant] as the equivalent of the state of Connecticut, and, there- fore, entitled to sovereign immunity requiring dismissal of the case for lack of subject matter…”

Fisher v. City of Berkeley, 475 U.S. 260 (1986). · cites it 2× “15 U. S. C. § 35 (a) (1982 ed., Supp. II) (immunizing local governments *279 only from liability for damages for violations of the antitrust laws).”

Miller's Pond Co., LLC v. City of New London, 873 A.2d 965 (Conn. 2005). · cites it 2× “See 15 U.S.C. § 35 (a) ("[n]o damages, interest on damages, costs, or attorney's fees may be recovered under section 4, 4A, or 4C of the Clayton Act [ 15 U.”

City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advert., Inc., 499 U.S. 365 (1991). “” 15 U. S. C. § 35 (b). The District Court determined that it would be, and the Court of Appeals refused to disturb that judgment.”

Richard A. Bolt & Richard A. Bolt, M.D. v. Halifax Hosp. Med. Ctr., 891 F.2d 810 (11th Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “§ 35 (b) ("existence of a ... district court judgment ... shall be deemed to be prima facie evidence that subsection (a) of this section [providing for local government immunity] shall not apply").”

Saginaw Cty. v. STAT Emergency Med. Servs., 946 F.3d 951 (6th Cir. 2020). “15 U.S.C. § 35 (a). No. 19-1424 Saginaw County v.”

MacArthur v. San Juan Cnty., 416 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (D. Utah 2005). · cites it 2× “§§ 15 , 15a, or 15c) from any local government, or official or employee thereof acting in an official capacity,” 15 U.S.C. § 35 (a), or “based on any official action directed by a local government, or official or employee thereof acting in an official capacity.”

James P. Martin v. Mem'l Hosp. at Gulfport, Wray Anderson, Mitchell Salloum, Edward Reid, & Myrtis Franke, 86 F.3d 1391 (5th Cir. 1996). · cites it 2× “15 USCS § 35. The hospital’s motion for summary judgment was denied as to all other claims for relief by plaintiff.”

Expert Masonry, Inc. v. Boone Cnty., Kentucky, Fiscal Court Don Salyers Masonry, Inc. Don Salyers John Doe 2, 440 F.3d 336 (6th Cir. 2006). “As a general proposition, only after a court has satisfied itself that the plaintiff has stated a prima facie violation of the antitrust laws should it assess any affirmative defenses, such as the absolute immunity from antitrust damages en *346 joyed by local governments, 15…”

Thatcher Enter. v. Cache Cnty. Corp., 902 F.2d 1472 (10th Cir. 1990). “15 U.S.C. §§ 35 (a), 36(a) (1988). Plaintiffs’ restraint of trade claim is an action under 15 U.”

Show all 90 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.