Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Anti-monopoly, Inc., Plaintiff-appellant, v. Hasbro, Inc., Defendant-appellee,toys "r" Us, Inc. and K-mart Corporation, Defendants
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. - 130 F.3d 1101
Argued Nov. 17, 1997.Decided Dec. 2, 1997
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.
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."
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).
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.