| Line 19: |
Line 19: |
| | *Mattei v. Int’l Conf. of Funeral Serv. Examining Bds., 2015 WL 5125799 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 1, 2015) (defendant not a state actor) | | *Mattei v. Int’l Conf. of Funeral Serv. Examining Bds., 2015 WL 5125799 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 1, 2015) (defendant not a state actor) |
| | *Sammons v. Nat’l Comm’n on Certification of Physician Assistants, Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 1379 (N.D. Ga. 2000) (defendant not a state actor) | | *Sammons v. Nat’l Comm’n on Certification of Physician Assistants, Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 1379 (N.D. Ga. 2000) (defendant not a state actor) |
| | + | *Am. Bd. of Internal Med. v. Salas-Rushford, 2021 WL 214268 (D.P.R. Jan. 20, 2021) (not a state actor) |
| | + | *Am. Bd. of Internal Med. v. Von Muller, 2011 WL 857337 (E.D. Pa. March 10, 2011) (not a state actor) |
| | + | *Goussis v. Kimball, 813 F. Supp. 352 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (not a state actor) |
| | + | *Munsif v. Cassel, 331 F. App’x 954 (3d Cir. 2009) (not a state actor) |
| | | | |
| | == Antitrust == | | == Antitrust == |
| Line 24: |
Line 28: |
| | *''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) | | *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) |
| | + | *Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Am. Bd. of Med. Specialties, 2020 WL 5642941 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 22, 2020) (failure to sufficiently allege a relevant market, aff'd, 15 F.4th 831 (7th Cir. 2021) |
| | *''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”) |
| − | *''DataCell ehf v. Visa'', 2015 WL 4624714 (E.D. Va. July 30, 2015) (Wikileaks related case; “[[Congress]] created antitrust laws to protect free market competition, not to protect the free exchange of ideas.”) | + | *''DataCell ehf v. Visa'', 2015 WL 4624714 (E.D. Va. July 30, 2015) (Wikileaks related case; “[[Congress]] created antitrust laws to protect free market competition, not to protect the free exchange of ideas.” Also, "the media market, is impossibly overbroad. DataCell makes no attempt to define the market geographically, or in terms of products.”) |
| | *''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) | | *''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) |
| | *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.”) | | *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.”) |
| | + | *Kenney v. Am. Bd. of Internal Med., 412 F. Supp. 3d 530 (E.D. Pa. 2019), aff'd, Kenney v. Am. Bd. of Internal Med., 847 F. App’x 137 (3d Cir. 2021) (legitimate interest by a specialty board in establishing standards) |
| | *''Reiter v. Sonotone Corp.'', 442 U.S. 330 (1979) (declaring that "consumer welfare" is the purpose of [[antitrust]] laws, citing [[Robert Bork]]'s treatise) | | *''Reiter v. Sonotone Corp.'', 442 U.S. 330 (1979) (declaring that "consumer welfare" is the purpose of [[antitrust]] laws, citing [[Robert Bork]]'s treatise) |
| | *Southland Sec. Corp. v. INSpire Ins. Sols. Inc., 365 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2004) | | *Southland Sec. Corp. v. INSpire Ins. Sols. Inc., 365 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2004) |
| | *''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”) | | *''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”) |
| | + | |
| | == Other == | | == Other == |
| − | *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) | | *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) | | *Apani Sw., Inc. v. Coca-Cola Enters., 300 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 2002) |
| | *Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (12(b) motion to dismiss) | | *Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (12(b) motion to dismiss) |
| − | *Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Am. Bd. of Med. Specialties, 2020 WL 5642941 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 22, 2020), aff'd, 15 F.4th 831 (7th Cir. 2021)
| |
| | *Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (12(b) motion to dismiss) | | *Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (12(b) motion to dismiss) |
| | *''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) | | *''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) |
| Line 49: |
Line 53: |
| | *Ginzburg v. Mem’l Healthcare Sys., 993 F. Supp. 998 (S.D. Tex. 1997) | | *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) | | *''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) | | *Greater Hous. Transp. Co. v. Uber Techs., Inc., 2015 WL 1034254 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2015) |
| | *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) |
| − | *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) | | *La. Div. Sons of Confederate Veterans v. City of Natchitoches, 370 F. Supp. 3d 692 (W.D. La. 2019) |
| | *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) |
| | *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]]) | | *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) | | *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) | | *Nelson v. Cauley, 2005 WL 415144 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2005) |
| | *Norris v. Hearst Tr., 500 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2007) | | *Norris v. Hearst Tr., 500 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2007) |