“Whether viewed in terms of ‘lack of standing’ or the absence of antitrust damages, the courts, in denying recovery to various kinds of plaintiffs, have sought to confine recovery to those who have been injured by restraints on competitive forces in the economy.”
How later courts described this case
- “Whether viewed in terms of ‘lack of standing’ or the absence of antitrust damages, the courts, in denying recovery to various kinds of plaintiffs, have sought to confine recovery to those who have been injured by restraints on competitive forces in the economy.”
- "[T]he plaintiff must allege and prove that the illegal restraint of trade injured his competitive position in the business in which he or she was engaged."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WATERMAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in affirming the lower court orders dismissing the complaint. I wish to emphasize that I do so on the specific ground that, taking all that is alleged in the complaint to be true, plaintiff-appel *760 lant has failed to allege that it has suffered antitrust damages.
Though I concur in our affirmance I wish to make it clear that I have grave reservations about those conclusions of the learned judge below set forth in GAF Corporation v. Circle Floor Co., 329 F.Supp. 823, 827-829 (S.D.N.Y. 1971) which relate to the nature and requirements of a claim arising under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 , 2.
Moreover, I underscore the statement by Judge Hays that, in reaching the result we reach, we have not been required to “consider the aspects of the sufficiency of the complaint which were passed upon by the three district court judges.”