Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Reiter Vs. Sonotone Corp.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 11, 1979

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

45 entries 45 unlinked
Show
  1. Reiter v. Sonotone
    Search
  2. Corp. - 442 U.S. 330 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court Reiter v. Sonotone
    Search
  3. Corp., 442 U.S. 330 (1979) Reiter v. Sonotone
    Search
  4. Pipe Works Page 442 U. S. 331 v. Atlanta
    Search
  5. an increase in the price paid for the article purchased. The District Court relied on Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works v. Atlanta
    Search
  6. S. 390 , 203 U. S. 396 (1906), and the legislative history of the Clayton Act set forth in Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo
    Search
  7. to those engaged in commercial ventures. It relied on the legislative history and this Court's statement in Hawaii v. Standard
    Search
  8. contains little in the way of restrictive language. In Pfizer Inc. v. Government
    Search
  9. forbidden practices Page 442 U. S. 338 by whomever they may be perpetrated.' Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. American
    Search
  10. Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International
    Search
  11. In construing a statute, we are obliged to give effect, if possible, to every word Congress used. United States v. Menasche
    Search
  12. here it does not. See FCC v. Pacifica
    Search
  13. also retains restrictive significance. It would, for example, exclude personal injuries suffered. E.g., Hamman v. United
    Search
  14. Indeed, this Court indicated as much in Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works v. Atlanta
    Search
  15. is implicit in our decision in Goldfarb v. Virginia
    Search
  16. E.g., Pfizer Inc. v. Government
    Search
  17. Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo
    Search
  18. Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United
    Search
  19. Mandeville Island Farms v. American
    Search
  20. Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U. S. 219 , 334 U. S. 236 (1948). Hawaii v. Standard
    Search
  21. in Hawaii v. Standard
    Search
  22. treble damages are recoverable by a state under the Clayton Act. Hawaii v. Standard
    Search
  23. In Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo
    Search
  24. Differing views on this issue have been expressed by various courts. See, e.g., Reiter v. Sonotone
    Search
  25. Bravman v. Bassett
    Search
  26. Cleary v. Chalk
    Search
  27. Theophil v. Sheller-Globe
    Search
  28. was barred by the direct purchaser rule of Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois
    Search
  29. Hawaii v. Standard
    Search
  30. Weinberg v. Federated
    Search
  31. H.R.Rep. No. 94-499, pp. 6, 9 (1975). See also Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois
    Search
  32. U.S. Supreme Court Reiter v. Sonotone
    Search
  33. Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works Page 442 U. S. 331 v. Atlanta
    Search
  34. Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works v. Atlanta
    Search
  35. Hawaii v. Standard
    Search
  36. In Pfizer Inc. v. Government
    Search
  37. Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. American
    Search
  38. Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International
    Search
  39. United States v. Menasche
    Search
  40. See FCC v. Pacifica
    Search
  41. E.g., Hamman v. United
    Search
  42. Goldfarb v. Virginia
    Search
  43. the Clayton Act. Hawaii v. Standard
    Search
  44. of Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois
    Search
  45. Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial