| Line 7: |
Line 7: |
| | *''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 == | + | == First Amendment and State Action == |
| | + | *Afzal v. Am. Bd. of Internal Med., 2022 WL 2447115 (3d Cir. July 6, 2022) (defendant not a state actor) |
| | *Doe v. Steward Health Care Sys., LLC, 2018 WL 4233816 (S.D. Tex. July 31, 2018) | | *Doe v. Steward Health Care Sys., LLC, 2018 WL 4233816 (S.D. Tex. July 31, 2018) |
| | *''Hondros v. Hewlett Packard Enter.'', 2021 WL 5087144 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2021) (“no allegations of state action as needed to plead a constitutional violation”) | | *''Hondros v. Hewlett Packard Enter.'', 2021 WL 5087144 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2021) (“no allegations of state action as needed to plead a constitutional violation”) |
| Line 22: |
Line 23: |
| | *''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”) |
| | == Other == | | == Other == |
| − | *Afzal v. Am. Bd. of Internal Med., 2022 WL 2447115 (3d Cir. July 6, 2022)
| |
| | *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) |
| | *Am. Bd. of Internal Med. v. Von Muller, 2011 WL 857337 (E.D. Pa. March 10, 2011) | | *Am. Bd. of Internal Med. v. Von Muller, 2011 WL 857337 (E.D. Pa. March 10, 2011) |