| Line 26: |
Line 26: |
| | *''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”) |
| | *''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”) |
| | + | *''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.”) |
| | + | *''Johnson v. Comm’n on Presidential Debates'', 869 F.3d 976 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (antitrust laws are economic, and do not reach marketplace of ideas) |
| | + | *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.”) |
| | + | *''Reiter v. Sonotone Corp.'', 442 U.S. 330 (1979) (declaring that "consumer welfare" is the purpose of [[antitrust]] laws, citing [[Robert Bork]]'s treatise) |
| | + | *Southland Sec. Corp. v. INSpire Ins. Sols. Inc., 365 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2004) |
| | + | *''Taylor Publ’g Co. v. Jostens Inc.'', 216 F.3d 465 (5th Cir. 2000) (an [[antitrust]] decision defining exclusionary conduct as something “inconsistent with competition on the merits” which has a “potential for making a significant contribution to monopoly power”) |
| | == Other == | | == Other == |
| | *Am. Bd. of Internal Med. v. Salas-Rushford, 2021 WL 214268 (D.P.R. Jan. 20, 2021) | | *Am. Bd. of Internal Med. v. Salas-Rushford, 2021 WL 214268 (D.P.R. Jan. 20, 2021) |
| Line 40: |
Line 46: |
| | *''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) |
| | *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) (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) |
| | *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) |
| Line 48: |
Line 53: |
| | *Greater Hous. Transp. Co. v. Uber Techs., Inc., 2015 WL 1034254 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2015) | | *Greater Hous. Transp. Co. v. Uber Techs., Inc., 2015 WL 1034254 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2015) |
| | *John Paul Mitchell Sys. v. Randalls Food Mkts., 17 S.W.3d 721 (Tex. App. 2000) | | *John Paul Mitchell Sys. v. Randalls Food Mkts., 17 S.W.3d 721 (Tex. App. 2000) |
| − | *''Johnson v. Comm’n on Presidential Debates'', 869 F.3d 976 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (antitrust laws are economic, and do not reach marketplace of ideas)
| |
| | *Kenney v. Am. Bd. of Internal Med., 847 F. App’x 137 (3d Cir. 2021) | | *Kenney v. Am. Bd. of Internal Med., 847 F. App’x 137 (3d Cir. 2021) |
| | *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) |
| Line 61: |
Line 65: |
| | *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) (“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) (declaring that "consumer welfare" is the purpose of [[antitrust]] laws, citing [[Robert Bork]]'s treatise)
| |
| − | *Southland Sec. Corp. v. INSpire Ins. Sols. Inc., 365 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2004)
| |
| | *Spectrum Sports v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447 (1993) | | *Spectrum Sports v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447 (1993) |
| | *''Stearns Airport Equip. v. FMC'', 170 F.3d 518, 522 (5th Cir. 1999) ("Exclusionary conduct under section 2 [of the Sherman Act] is the creation or maintenance of monopoly by means other than the competition on the merits embodied in the ''Grinnell'' standard.") | | *''Stearns Airport Equip. v. FMC'', 170 F.3d 518, 522 (5th Cir. 1999) ("Exclusionary conduct under section 2 [of the Sherman Act] is the creation or maintenance of monopoly by means other than the competition on the merits embodied in the ''Grinnell'' standard.") |
| Line 73: |
Line 74: |
| | *Suarez v. iHeartMedia + Entm’t, Inc., (W.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2019) | | *Suarez v. iHeartMedia + Entm’t, Inc., (W.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2019) |
| | *Surgical Care Ctr. of Hammond, L.C. v. Hosp. Serv., 309 F.3d 836 (5th Cir. 2002) | | *Surgical Care Ctr. of Hammond, L.C. v. Hosp. Serv., 309 F.3d 836 (5th Cir. 2002) |
| − | *''Taylor Publ’g Co. v. Jostens Inc.'', 216 F.3d 465 (5th Cir. 2000) (an [[antitrust]] decision defining exclusionary conduct as something “inconsistent with competition on the merits” which has a “potential for making a significant contribution to monopoly power”)
| |
| | *Texas Beef Cattle Co. v. Green, 921 S.W.2d 203 (Tex. 1996) | | *Texas Beef Cattle Co. v. Green, 921 S.W.2d 203 (Tex. 1996) |
| | *Transource Int’l, Inc. v. Trinity Indus., Inc., 725 F.2d 274 (5th Cir. 1984) | | *Transource Int’l, Inc. v. Trinity Indus., Inc., 725 F.2d 274 (5th Cir. 1984) |