ALLcrimesfood&drugstaxestelecomcommercehealthconservationtransportationagricultureveteransbrowse all titles »
0

15 U.S.C. § 35Recovery of damages, etc., for antitrust violations from any local government, or official or employee thereof acting in an official capacity

submitted 42 years ago by Pub. L. 98-544 to r/title-15-COMMERCE-AND-TRADE · 153 words · no verdicts yet

in plain englishAI-generated · not legal advice

Local governments, and their officials or employees acting officially, generally can't be forced to pay damages, interest, costs, or attorney's fees for antitrust violations under the Clayton Act. This protection doesn't automatically apply to cases already filed before this law took effect, unless a court finds applying it would be unfair.

(a) Prohibition. No damages, interest on damages, costs, or attorney's fees can be recovered under section 4, 4A, or 4C of the Clayton Act from a local government, or from an official or employee of that local government who was acting in their official capacity. (b) Exception for pending cases. This prohibition does not automatically apply to cases that were already filed before this Act's effective date. It applies to those older cases only if the defendant shows, and the court decides — after weighing everything, including how far along the case is and whether other relief under the Clayton Act is available — that it would be unfair not to apply the prohibition. If a case already has a jury verdict, a district court judgment, or has moved further along than that, the law treats that fact as strong evidence that the prohibition should not apply to it.
the actual law source: uscode.house.gov ↗public domain
(a) Prohibition in general

No damages, interest on damages, costs, or attorney’s fees may be recovered under section 4, 4A, or 4C of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 15, 15a, or 15c) from any local government, or official or employee thereof acting in an official capacity.

(b) Preconditions for attachment of prohibition; prima facie evidence for nonapplication of prohibition

Subsection (a) shall not apply to cases commenced before the effective date of this Act unless the defendant establishes and the court determines, in light of all the circumstances, including the stage of litigation and the availability of alternative relief under the Clayton Act, that it would be inequitable not to apply this subsection to a pending case. In consideration of this section, existence of a jury verdict, district court judgment, or any stage of litigation subsequent thereto, shall be deemed to be prima facie evidence that subsection (a) shall not apply.

Source credit: (Pub. L. 98–544, § 3, Oct. 24, 1984, 98 Stat. 2750.)

history & why it existsrecord from the source credit
  • 1984Enacted · Pub. L. 98-544 · 98 Stat. 2750

A history note hasn’t been published yet. The record shows enactment by Pub. L. 98-544 on 1984-10-24.

all 0 arguments · sorted by: best

0/280

no arguments yet — make the first case