Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

130 F.3d 1101

Docket No. 864, Docket No. 97-7545.

Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. Hasbro, Inc.

Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Nov. 17, 1997. Decided Dec. 2, 1997.

Third Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1997-12-02

2 counsel of record

Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1997-12-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 327 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Charles Jones v. School District of Philadelphia United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (1999), Simpson v. Kay Jewelers (1998)

39 federal appellate · 31 district · 4 state decisions

15001997200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Lawrence M. McKenna, Judge, dismissing complaint under Sherman, Clayton, and Robinson-Patman Acts, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. See 958 F.Supp. 895 (1997).

Affirmed.

Carl E. Person, New York City, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Gary L. Reback, Palo Alto, CA (David J. Berger, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Palo Alto, CA, Neal R. Stoll, Peter S. Julian, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, New York City, on the brief), for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: KEARSE and CARDAMONE, Circuit Judges, and LEISURE, District Judge*.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

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-Patman 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."

¶2

We have considered all of plaintiff's 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).

¶3

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

*

Honorable Peter K. Leisure, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation

/130/f3d/1101 · .json · Public domain