Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,790
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 7:
Line 7: + +
improved
(1) an agreement or understanding between two or more parties and (2) a specific intent to monopolize and (3) overt acts in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. See, e.g., ''Robinson v. Magovern'', 521 F.Supp. 842, 892 (W.D. Pa. 1981).
(1) an agreement or understanding between two or more parties and (2) a specific intent to monopolize and (3) overt acts in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. See, e.g., ''Robinson v. Magovern'', 521 F.Supp. 842, 892 (W.D. Pa. 1981).
In at least the Second and Third Circuits, proof of a dangerous likelihood of monopolization is not required. ''See Deborah Heart & Lung Ctr. v. Penn Presbypyterian Med. Ctr.'', 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149664 (D.N.J. Dec. 30, 2011).
[[Category:United States Law]]
[[Category:United States Law]]
[[Category:antitrust]]