| Line 7: |
Line 7: |
| | *''Warth v. Seldin'', 422 U.S. 490 (1975) (standing cannot be based on the interests of others) | | *''Warth v. Seldin'', 422 U.S. 490 (1975) (standing cannot be based on the interests of others) |
| | == First Amendment == | | == First Amendment == |
| | + | *Doe v. Steward Health Care Sys., LLC, 2018 WL 4233816 (S.D. Tex. July 31, 2018) |
| | + | *''Hondros v. Hewlett Packard Enter.'', 2021 WL 5087144 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2021) (“no allegations of state action as needed to plead a constitutional violation”) |
| | *''Hudgens v. NLRB'', 424 U.S. 507 (1976) (“It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state.”) | | *''Hudgens v. NLRB'', 424 U.S. 507 (1976) (“It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state.”) |
| − | *''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.”) |
| − | *''Hondros v. Hewlett Packard Enter.'', 2021 WL 5087144 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2021) (“no allegations of state action as needed to plead a constitutional violation”); | + | *''[[Richard v. Hoechst Celanese Chem. Group]]'', 355 F.3d 345 (5th Cir. 2003) (the test for when private conduct can be considered state action) |
| | *''Story v. Best Way Transp.'', 2020 WL 5045658 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2020) (dismissing a constitutional cause of action because the “named defendants are private actors” and the plaintiff “did not allege that they are state actors or are affiliated with the state”) | | *''Story v. Best Way Transp.'', 2020 WL 5045658 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2020) (dismissing a constitutional cause of action because the “named defendants are private actors” and the plaintiff “did not allege that they are state actors or are affiliated with the state”) |
| | | | |
| Line 36: |
Line 38: |
| | *''DataCell ehf v. Visa'', 2015 WL 4624714 (E.D. Va. July 30, 2015) (Wikileaks related case; “[[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) (Wikileaks related case; “[[Congress]] created antitrust laws to protect free market competition, not to protect the free exchange of ideas.”) |
| | *''[[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)
| |
| | *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 64: |
Line 65: |
| | *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) (declaring that "consumer welfare" is the purpose of [[antitrust]] laws, citing [[Robert Bork]]'s treatise) | | *''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)
| |
| | *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) |
| | *Sanjuan v. Am. Bd. of Psychiatry & Neurology, 40 F.3d 247 (7th Cir. 1994) | | *Sanjuan v. Am. Bd. of Psychiatry & Neurology, 40 F.3d 247 (7th Cir. 1994) |