Antitrust cases

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):

• 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.”)
• 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 293277 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 23, 2019)
• Am. Bd. of Internal Med. v. Salas-Rushford, 2021 WL 214268 (D.P.R. Jan. 20, 2021)
• Am. Bd. of Internal Med. v. Von Muller, 2011 WL 857337 (E.D. Pa. March 10, 2011)
• Anago, Inc. v. Tecnol Med. Prods., 976 F.2d 248 (5th Cir. 1992)
• Apani Sw., Inc. v. Coca-Cola Enters., 300 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 2002)
• Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)
• 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. Schiff, 23 F.4th 1028 (D.C. Cir. 2022)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• DataCell ehf v. Visa, 2015 WL 4624714 (E.D. Va. July 30, 2015) (“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)
• 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)
• Ginzburg v. Mem’l Healthcare Sys., 993 F. Supp. 998 (S.D. Tex. 1997)
• Glass v. Paxton, 900 F.3d 233 (5th Cir. 2018) (professor lacked standing to challenge pro-Second Amendment law for students)
• Goussis v. Kimball, 813 F. Supp. 352 (E.D. Pa. 1993)
• Greater Hous. Transp. Co. v. Uber Techs., Inc., 2015 WL 1034254 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2015)
• Hondros v. Hewlett Packard Enter., 2021 WL 5087144 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2021)
• 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.”)
• Jallali v. Nat’l Bd. of Osteopathic Med. Examiners, Inc., 2012 WL 3151553 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2012)
• 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., 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)
• Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)
• 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)
• McCormack v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Assoc., 845 F.2d 1338 (5th Cir. 1988)
• McMahon v. Fenves, 946 F.3d 266 (5th Cir. 2020) (denying standing to assert First Amendment infringement on others, and denying objection to a university's relocation of monuments of the Confederacy)
• Morris v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 277 F.3d 743 (5th Cir. 2001)
• Munsif v. Cassel, 331 F. App’x 954 (3d Cir. 2009)
• Nelson v. Cauley, 2005 WL 415144 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2005)
• Norris v. Hearst Tr., 500 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2007)
• Oxford Glob. Res., Inc. v. Weekley-Cessnun, 2004 WL 2599898 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2004)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Sanjuan v. Am. Bd. of Psychiatry & Neurology, 40 F.3d 247 (7th Cir. 1994)
• Southland Sec. Corp. v. INSpire Ins. Sols. Inc., 365 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2004)
• 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.")
• Stewart Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. U.S.A. Glass, Inc., 940 F. Supp. 1026 (E.D. Tex. 1996)
• Story v. Best Way Transp, Inc., 2020 WL 5045658 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2020)
• 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)
• 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)
• Transource Int’l, Inc. v. Trinity Indus., Inc., 725 F.2d 274 (5th Cir. 1984)
• U.S. v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737 (1995) (standing is a threshold jurisdictional question)
• Waggoner v. Denbury Onshore, L.L.C., 612 F. App’x 734 (5th Cir. 2015)
• 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)
• 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)