| Line 52: |
Line 52: |
| | *Parker & Parsley Petrol. Co. v. Dresser Indus., 972 F.2d 580 (5th Cir. 1992) | | *Parker & Parsley Petrol. Co. v. Dresser Indus., 972 F.2d 580 (5th Cir. 1992) |
| | *Pikaluk v. Horseshoe Entm’t L.P., 810 F. App’x 243 (5th Cir. 2020) | | *Pikaluk v. Horseshoe Entm’t L.P., 810 F. App’x 243 (5th Cir. 2020) |
| − | *In re Pool Prods. Distribution Mkt. Antitrust Litig., 940 F. Supp. 2d 367 (E.D. La. 2013) | + | *In re Pool Prods. Distribution Mkt. Antitrust Litig., 940 F. Supp. 2d 367 (E.D. La. 2013) (“Higher prices to purchasers and lower output are exactly the types of harm that the antitrust laws are meant to prevent.”) |
| | *Priester v. Lowndes County, 354 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. 2004) | | *Priester v. Lowndes County, 354 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. 2004) |
| | *PSKS, Inc. v. Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc., 615 F.3d 412 (5th Cir. 2010) | | *PSKS, Inc. v. Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc., 615 F.3d 412 (5th Cir. 2010) |
| | *R2 Invs. LDC v. Phillips, 401 F.3d 638 (5th Cir. 2005) | | *R2 Invs. LDC v. Phillips, 401 F.3d 638 (5th Cir. 2005) |
| | *Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) | | *Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) |
| − | *Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330 (1979) | + | *''Reiter v. Sonotone Corp.'', 442 U.S. 330 (1979) (declaring that "consumer welfare" is the purpose of [[antitrust]] laws, citing [[Robert Bork]]'s treatise) |
| | *Richard v. Hoechst Celanese Chem. Group, Inc., 355 F.3d 345 (5th Cir. 2003) | | *Richard v. Hoechst Celanese Chem. Group, Inc., 355 F.3d 345 (5th Cir. 2003) |
| | *Sammons v. Nat’l Comm’n on Certification of Physician Assistants, Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 1379 (N.D. Ga. 2000) | | *Sammons v. Nat’l Comm’n on Certification of Physician Assistants, Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 1379 (N.D. Ga. 2000) |