Minn-Chem, Incorporated, et al v. Agrium Incorporated, et al
MINN-CHEM, INCORPORATED, GAGE'S FERTILIZER & GRAIN, INCORPORATED, INDIRECT PURCHASERS, THOMASVILLE FEED & SEED, INCORPORATED and DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS |
AGRIUM INCORPORATED, MOSAIC COMPANY, POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN, INCORPORATED, JSC URALKALI, BPC CHICAGO, LLC and JSC SILVINIT |
10-1712 |
March 24, 2010 |
U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit |
Other Statutory Actions |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
Description |
---|
Minn-Chem, Inc. v. Agrium Inc. |
Minn-Chem, Inc. v. Agrium, Inc. |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 701790803 Filed opinion of the court by Judge Wood. AFFIRMED. Frank H. Easterbrook, Chief Judge; Richard A. Posner, Circuit Judge; Daniel A. Manion, Circuit Judge; Michael S. Kanne, Circuit Judge; Diane P. Wood, Circuit Judge; Diane S. Sykes, Circuit Judge; John Daniel Tinder, Circuit Judge and David F. Hamilton, Circuit Judge*. * Circuit Judges Flaum, Rovner, and Williams took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. [6408653-3] [6408653] [10-1712] |
Filing 701617302 Filed opinion of the court by Judge Sykes. We VACATE the district court's order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss and REMAND with instructions to dismiss the plaintiffs' Sherman Act claim. Daniel A. Manion, Circuit Judge; Terence T. Evans*, Circuit Judge and Diane S. Sykes, Circuit Judge. (*Circuit Judge Terence T. Evans died on August 10, 2011, and did not participate in the decision of this case, which is being resolved by a quorum of the panel under 28 U.S.C. 46(d).) [6339918-3] [6339918] [10-1712] |
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.