| Line 6: |
Line 6: |
| | *''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”) |
| | *''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 == |
| | + | *''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.”) |
| | + | *Hondros v. Hewlett Packard Enter., 2021 WL 5087144 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2021) |
| | + | *Story v. Best Way Transp, Inc., 2020 WL 5045658 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2020) |
| | == Other == | | == 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.”) |
| Line 36: |
Line 41: |
| | *Goussis v. Kimball, 813 F. Supp. 352 (E.D. Pa. 1993) | | *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) | | *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) | | *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) | | *John Paul Mitchell Sys. v. Randalls Food Mkts., 17 S.W.3d 721 (Tex. App. 2000) |
| Line 44: |
Line 47: |
| | *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) |
| | *La. Div. Sons of Confederate Veterans v. City of Natchitoches, 370 F. Supp. 3d 692 (W.D. La. 2019) | | *La. Div. Sons of Confederate Veterans v. City of Natchitoches, 370 F. Supp. 3d 692 (W.D. La. 2019) |
| − | *''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) | | *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) | | *McCormack v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Assoc., 845 F.2d 1338 (5th Cir. 1988) |
| Line 68: |
Line 70: |
| | *''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.") |
| | *Stewart Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. U.S.A. Glass, Inc., 940 F. Supp. 1026 (E.D. Tex. 1996) | | *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) | | *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) |