| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
| | *''Alamo Forensic Servs. v. Bexar Cty.'', 2020 WL 2559956 (W.D. Tex. May 19, 2020) (lack of standing case similar to ''Duran'' decision below) | | *''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) | | *Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Schiff, 23 F.4th 1028 (D.C. Cir. 2022) |
| | + | *''[[Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA]]'', 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (a landmark 5-4 decision against [[standing]]) |
| | *''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) | | *''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”) | | *''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”) |
| Line 15: |
Line 16: |
| | | | |
| | == Antitrust == | | == Antitrust == |
| − |
| |
| − | == 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.”) |
| | + | *''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”) |
| | + | *''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”) |
| | + | == Other == |
| | *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) |
| | *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) |
| Line 31: |
Line 33: |
| | *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) |
| − | *''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) |
| − | *''[[Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA]]'', 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (a landmark 5-4 decision against [[standing]])
| |
| − | *''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) (declaratory judgment action needs viable underlying claim) | | *''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) |