| Line 15: |
Line 15: |
| | *Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Schiff, 23 F.4th 1028 (D.C. Cir. 2022) | | *Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Schiff, 23 F.4th 1028 (D.C. Cir. 2022) |
| | *Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) | | *Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) |
| − | *Bell v. Bk. of Am. Home Loan Svc., L.P., 2012 WL 568755 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2012) | + | *''Bell v. Bk. of Am. Home Loan Svc., L.P.'', 2012 WL 568755 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2012) (declaratory judgment action needs viable underlying claim) |
| | *''Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-OMat'', 429 U.S. 477 (1977) (limiting “antitrust injury” to an “injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendant’s acts unlawful”) | | *''Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-OMat'', 429 U.S. 477 (1977) (limiting “antitrust injury” to an “injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendant’s acts unlawful”) |
| | *Chair King, Inc. v. Houston Cellular Corp., 131 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 1997), ''abrogated on other grounds'', Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 565 U.S. 368 (2012) | | *Chair King, Inc. v. Houston Cellular Corp., 131 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 1997), ''abrogated on other grounds'', Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 565 U.S. 368 (2012) |
| Line 21: |
Line 21: |
| | *''Clean Water Opportunities, Inc. v. Willamette Valley Co.'', 759 F. App’x 244 (5th Cir. 2019) (test for Section 2 of the [[Sherman Act]]: “(1) possesses monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) acquired or maintained that power willfully, as distinguished from the power having arisen and continued by growth produced by the development of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident,” and the second test requires "a showing of exclusionary conduct”) | | *''Clean Water Opportunities, Inc. v. Willamette Valley Co.'', 759 F. App’x 244 (5th Cir. 2019) (test for Section 2 of the [[Sherman Act]]: “(1) possesses monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) acquired or maintained that power willfully, as distinguished from the power having arisen and continued by growth produced by the development of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident,” and the second test requires "a showing of exclusionary conduct”) |
| | *Coinmach Corp v. Aspenwood Apartment Corp., 417 S.W.3d 909 (Tex. 2013) | | *Coinmach Corp v. Aspenwood Apartment Corp., 417 S.W.3d 909 (Tex. 2013) |
| − | *Collin Cty. v. Homeowners Ass’n for Values Essential to Neighborhoods, 915 F.2d 167 (5th Cir. 1990) | + | *''Collin Cty. v. Homeowners Ass’n for Values Essential to Neighborhoods'', 915 F.2d 167 (5th Cir. 1990) (declaratory judgment action needs viable underlying claim) |
| | *Cox Operating L.L.C. v. Wells Fargo Bk., N.A., 2020 WL 13228364 (S.D. Tex. June 16, 2020) | | *Cox Operating L.L.C. v. Wells Fargo Bk., N.A., 2020 WL 13228364 (S.D. Tex. June 16, 2020) |
| | *''DataCell ehf v. Visa'', 2015 WL 4624714 (E.D. Va. July 30, 2015) (“[[Congress]] created antitrust laws to protect free market competition, not to protect the free exchange of ideas.”) | | *''DataCell ehf v. Visa'', 2015 WL 4624714 (E.D. Va. July 30, 2015) (“[[Congress]] created antitrust laws to protect free market competition, not to protect the free exchange of ideas.”) |