| Line 18: |
Line 18: |
| | *''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.”) |
| | *''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.”) | | *''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.”) |
| | + | *Allyn v. Am. Bd. of Med. Specialties, 2019 WL 297459 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2019), adopted by 2019 WL 293277 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 23, 2019) (Boards not control hospital staffing decisions) |
| | *''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”) |
| | == Other == | | == Other == |
| | *Afzal v. Am. Bd. of Internal Med., 2022 WL 2447115 (3d Cir. July 6, 2022) | | *Afzal v. Am. Bd. of Internal Med., 2022 WL 2447115 (3d Cir. July 6, 2022) |
| − | *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. 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) |