550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 275,491 times 368 Legal Analyses
Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing
528 U.S. 167 (2000) Cited 7,372 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs who curtailed their recreational activities on a river due to reasonable concerns about the effect of pollutant discharges into that river had standing
457 U.S. 147 (1982) Cited 5,753 times 33 Legal Analyses
Holding that named plaintiff must prove “much more than the validity of his own claim”; the individual plaintiff must show that “the individual's claim and the class claims will share common questions of law or fact and that the individual's claim will be typical of the class claims,” explicitly referencing the “commonality” and “typicality” requirements of Rule 23
504 U.S. 451 (1992) Cited 2,316 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that "it is clearly reasonable to infer that [the defendant] has market power to raise prices and drive out competition in the aftermarkets" for service and parts despite an undisputed lack of market power in the initial product
384 U.S. 563 (1966) Cited 2,674 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding a series of three acquisitions "eliminated any possibility of an outbreak of competition" and thereby "perfected the monopoly power to exclude competitors and fix prices."
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17043 Cited 111 times 3 Legal Analyses
In section 17043, in contrast, the very gravamen of the offense is the purpose underlying the anticompetitive act, rather than the actual or threatened harm to competition.
It is unlawful for any person engaged in business within this State to sell or use any article or product as a "loss leader" as defined in Section 17030 of this chapter. Ca. Bus. and Prof'l. Code § 17044 Amended by Stats. 1953, Ch. 334.