No. 23-1191
Dru Choker, et al. v. National Veterinary Associates, Inc., et al.
Response Waived
Tags: antitrust antitrust-standing civil-procedure conspiracy damage-relief damages impending-injury monopolistic-behavior monopoly sherman-act standing
Key Terms:
Antitrust JusticiabilityDoctri
Antitrust JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2024-06-06
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a party injured by antitrust behavior leading to a monopolistic end has standing for damage relief under the Sherman Act's 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, and 15
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW. Whether a party injured by antitrust behavior leading to a monopolistic end has standing for damage relief under the Sherman Act’s 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, and 15. Whether the court or a jury determines when conspirators’ violation of the antitrust act is sufficiently “impending” to inflict injury allowing for damages under the Sherman Act’s 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, and 15. u II.
Docket Entries
2024-06-10
Petition DENIED.
2024-05-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/6/2024.
2024-05-13
Waiver of right of respondent National Veterinary Associates, Inc. to respond filed.
2024-05-07
Waiver of right of respondent PET EMERGENCY CLINIC, P.S. to respond filed.
2024-05-01
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 3, 2024)
Attorneys
Dru Choker, et al.
Mary E. Schultz — Mary Schultz Law, P.S., Petitioner
Mary E. Schultz — Mary Schultz Law, P.S., Petitioner
National Veterinary Associates, Inc.
James A. McPhee — Witherspoon Brajcich McPhee, PLLC, Respondent
James A. McPhee — Witherspoon Brajcich McPhee, PLLC, Respondent
PET EMERGENCY CLINIC, P.S.
Brian William Esler — Miller Nash LLP, Respondent
Brian William Esler — Miller Nash LLP, Respondent