Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. Hasbro, Inc., Toys "R" Us, Inc. And K-Mart Corporation
ANTI-MONOPOLY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HASBRO, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Toys “R” US, Inc. and K-Mart Corporation, Defendants
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff Anti-Monopoly, Inc., appeals from a final judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Lawrence M. McKenna, Judge, dismissing its antitrust complaint against defendant Hasbro, Inc. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings dismissing so much of the complaint as asserted a secondary-line violation of the Robinson-Pat-man Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13 , on the ground that plaintiff lacked standing to assert such claims. The court granted summary judgment dismissing the remainder of the complaint, which principally asserted- claims under sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 , 2, and sections 3 and 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 14 , 18, on the grounds, inter alia, that plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to infer that plaintiff suffered “antitrust injury.”
We have considered all of plaintiffs challenges to the district court’s rulings and have found in them no basis for reversal. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated in Judge McKenna’s Memorandum and Order, reported at 958 F.Supp. 895 (1997).
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(Docket No. 12, Defs. Reply Memo. at 7)
Cited by 29 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- SANTORO v. EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE
- Mykel Isbell v. The City of New York
- Roberto Islas Durand, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Imperial Parking (U.S.), LLC
- Arabia Jennings v. City of New York
- Makayla Naomi Hodge v. City of Mount Vernon
- Zebra Strategies Inc. v. Gonzalez- Nazario
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.