| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | '''Antitrust cases''', including those under Section 2 of the [[Sherman Act]] and on [[standing]] and [[subject matter jurisdiction]], entail the following 78 cases (15 by the Supreme Court, 27 by the [[Fifth Circuit]], 18 by district or state courts in [[Texas]], and 7 by other Circuits): | | '''Antitrust cases''', including those under Section 2 of the [[Sherman Act]] and on [[standing]] and [[subject matter jurisdiction]], entail the following 78 cases (15 by the Supreme Court, 27 by the [[Fifth Circuit]], 18 by district or state courts in [[Texas]], and 7 by other Circuits): |
| | + | == Standing == |
| | + | *''Alamo Forensic Servs. v. Bexar Cty.'', 2020 WL 2559956 (W.D. Tex. May 19, 2020) (lack of standing case similar to ''Duran'' decision below) |
| | + | *Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Schiff, 23 F.4th 1028 (D.C. Cir. 2022) |
| | + | *''Duran v. City of Corpus Christi'', 240 F. App’x 639 (5th Cir. 2007) (lack of standing to assert a First Amendment retaliation claim on behalf of someone else)*''Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife'', 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (the landmark decision by Justice [[Scalia]] denying [[standing]] in an [[Endangered Species Act]] case) |
| | + | *''Ward v. Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist.'', 393 F.3d 599 (5th Cir. 2004) (establishing that “prudential limitations on standing” require that “a litigant ... must assert his or her own legal rights and interests and cannot rest a claim to relief on the legal rights or interest of third parties”) |
| | + | *''Warth v. Seldin'', 422 U.S. 490 (1975) (standing cannot be based on the interests of others) |
| | + | == Other == |
| | *''Abraham & Veneklasen Joint Venture v. Am. Quarter Horse Ass’n'', 776 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2015) (“[E]ssential attributes of illegal monopoly power are judged by the monopolist’s participation in the relevant market.”) | | *''Abraham & Veneklasen Joint Venture v. Am. Quarter Horse Ass’n'', 776 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2015) (“[E]ssential attributes of illegal monopoly power are judged by the monopolist’s participation in the relevant market.”) |
| | *''Adams v. Am. Bar Assoc.'', 400 F. Supp. 219 (E.D. Pa. 1975) (“The antitrust laws ... do not reach conduct which the plaintiffs perceive as a monopoly of free trade in ideas.”) | | *''Adams v. Am. Bar Assoc.'', 400 F. Supp. 219 (E.D. Pa. 1975) (“The antitrust laws ... do not reach conduct which the plaintiffs perceive as a monopoly of free trade in ideas.”) |
| | *Afzal v. Am. Bd. of Internal Med., 2022 WL 2447115 (3d Cir. July 6, 2022) | | *Afzal v. Am. Bd. of Internal Med., 2022 WL 2447115 (3d Cir. July 6, 2022) |
| − | *''Alamo Forensic Servs. v. Bexar Cty.'', 2020 WL 2559956 (W.D. Tex. May 19, 2020) (lack of standing case similar to ''Duran'' decision below)
| |
| | *Allyn v. Am. Bd. of Med. Specialties, Inc., 2019 WL 297459 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2019) | | *Allyn v. Am. Bd. of Med. Specialties, Inc., 2019 WL 297459 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2019) |
| | *Allyn v. Am. Bd. of Med. Specialties, Inc., 2019 WL 293277 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 23, 2019) | | *Allyn v. Am. Bd. of Med. Specialties, Inc., 2019 WL 293277 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 23, 2019) |
| Line 13: |
Line 19: |
| | *Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Am. Bd. of Med. Specialties, 15 F.4th 831 (7th Cir. 2021) | | *Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Am. Bd. of Med. Specialties, 15 F.4th 831 (7th Cir. 2021) |
| | *Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Am. Bd. of Med. Specialties, 2020 WL 5642941 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 22, 2020) | | *Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Am. Bd. of Med. Specialties, 2020 WL 5642941 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 22, 2020) |
| − | *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) (declaratory judgment action needs viable underlying claim) | | *''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) |
| Line 26: |
Line 31: |
| | *''[[Doctor’s Hosp. of Jefferson, Inc. v. Se. Med. All., Inc.]]'', 123 F.3d 301 (5th Cir. 1997) | | *''[[Doctor’s Hosp. of Jefferson, Inc. v. Se. Med. All., Inc.]]'', 123 F.3d 301 (5th Cir. 1997) |
| | *Doe v. Steward Health Care Sys., LLC, 2018 WL 4233816 (S.D. Tex. July 31, 2018) | | *Doe v. Steward Health Care Sys., LLC, 2018 WL 4233816 (S.D. Tex. July 31, 2018) |
| − | *''Duran v. City of Corpus Christi'', 240 F. App’x 639 (5th Cir. 2007) (lack of standing to assert a First Amendment retaliation claim on behalf of someone else)
| |
| | *Estates of Coley v. Hillenbrand Indus., 2007 WL 9761346 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2007) | | *Estates of Coley v. Hillenbrand Indus., 2007 WL 9761346 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2007) |
| | *Ginzburg v. Mem’l Healthcare Sys., 993 F. Supp. 998 (S.D. Tex. 1997) | | *Ginzburg v. Mem’l Healthcare Sys., 993 F. Supp. 998 (S.D. Tex. 1997) |
| Line 40: |
Line 44: |
| | *Kenney v. Am. Bd. of Internal Med., 412 F. Supp. 3d 530 (E.D. Pa. 2019) | | *Kenney v. Am. Bd. of Internal Med., 412 F. Supp. 3d 530 (E.D. Pa. 2019) |
| | *La. Div. Sons of Confederate Veterans v. City of Natchitoches, 370 F. Supp. 3d 692 (W.D. La. 2019) | | *La. Div. Sons of Confederate Veterans v. City of Natchitoches, 370 F. Supp. 3d 692 (W.D. La. 2019) |
| − | *''Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife'', 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (the landmark decision by Justice [[Scalia]] denying [[standing]] in an [[Endangered Species Act]] case)
| |
| | *''Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck'', 139 S. Ct. 1921 (2019) (the [[First Amendment]] “prohibits only governmental abridgement of speech” and “does not prohibit [the] private abridgement of speech.”) | | *''Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck'', 139 S. Ct. 1921 (2019) (the [[First Amendment]] “prohibits only governmental abridgement of speech” and “does not prohibit [the] private abridgement of speech.”) |
| | *Mattei v. Int’l Conf. of Funeral Serv. Examining Bds., 2015 WL 5125799 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 1, 2015) | | *Mattei v. Int’l Conf. of Funeral Serv. Examining Bds., 2015 WL 5125799 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 1, 2015) |
| Line 75: |
Line 78: |
| | *''Wal-Mart Stores v. Sturges'', 52 S.W.3d 711 (Tex. 2001) ([[Texas]] recognizes tortious interference with existing business relations and tortious interference with prospective business relations) | | *''Wal-Mart Stores v. Sturges'', 52 S.W.3d 711 (Tex. 2001) ([[Texas]] recognizes tortious interference with existing business relations and tortious interference with prospective business relations) |
| | *Walker Process Equip. v. Food Mach. & Chem. Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965) | | *Walker Process Equip. v. Food Mach. & Chem. Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965) |
| − | *''Ward v. Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist.'', 393 F.3d 599 (5th Cir. 2004) (establishing that “prudential limitations on standing” require that “a litigant ... must assert his or her own legal rights and interests and cannot rest a claim to relief on the legal rights or interest of third parties”)
| |
| − | *''Warth v. Seldin'', 422 U.S. 490 (1975) (standing cannot be based on the interests of others)
| |
| | *Watts v. Northside Indep. Sch. Dist., 37 F. 4th 1094 (5th Cir. 2022) | | *Watts v. Northside Indep. Sch. Dist., 37 F. 4th 1094 (5th Cir. 2022) |
| | [[category:antitrust]] | | [[category:antitrust]] |
| | [[category:First Amendment]] | | [[category:First Amendment]] |