Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdamageslitigationappealhearingmotiontrustclass actionantitrustsustainedmotion to dismiss
appealhearingtrustclass actionantitrustrespondent

Related Cases

Dickey v. National Football League, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2018 WL 4623061, 2018 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 349,150
View Case »
Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 53 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1105
View Case »
Turcotte v. Fell, 68 N.Y.2d 432, 502 N.E.2d 964, 510 N.Y.S.2d 49
View Case »
Moran v. Selig, 447 F.3d 748, 97 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1825, 87 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,351, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3803, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5550
View Case »
Jarreau v. Orleans Parish School Bd., 605 So.2d 1378 (Mem)
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 99 S.Ct. 2326, 60 L.Ed.2d 931, 27 Fed.R.Serv.2d 653, 1979-1 Trade Cases P 62,688

Facts

The petitioner, a consumer who purchased hearing aids, filed a class action against the manufacturers under the Clayton Act, alleging that antitrust violations led to artificially inflated prices. The District Court initially denied a motion to dismiss but certified the question of whether the plaintiff had sustained an injury to her property. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision, stating that retail purchasers who do not allege a commercial injury lack standing under the Clayton Act. The Supreme Court ultimately held that consumers can claim injury in property due to antitrust violations.

Petitioner brought a class action on behalf of herself and all persons in the United States who purchased hearing aids manufactured by respondents, alleging that, because of antitrust violations committed by respondents, she and the class she seeks to represent have been forced to pay illegally fixed higher prices for the hearing aids and related services they purchased from respondents' retail dealers.

Issue

Rule

Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed the language of the Clayton Act, emphasizing that the disjunctive 'or' indicates that 'business' does not modify 'property' and vice versa. The Court referenced previous cases, such as Chattanooga Foundry, to illustrate that monetary injuries can constitute property injuries. The Court concluded that the petitioner, having been deprived of money due to anticompetitive conduct, had indeed sustained an injury in her property as defined by the Act.

The phrase 'business or property' means 'business activity or property related to one's business.' Brief for Respondents 11 n. 7. The phrase 'business or property' also retains restrictive significance. It would, for example, exclude personal injuries suffered.

Conclusion

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Who won?

The petitioner, Reiter, prevailed in the Supreme Court, which recognized her standing to sue under the Clayton Act. The Court's ruling clarified that consumers are entitled to seek damages for injuries sustained due to antitrust violations, thereby reinforcing consumer rights in antitrust litigation. This decision emphasized the importance of protecting consumers from unfair pricing practices resulting from anticompetitive behavior.

You must be