| Line 31: |
Line 31: |
| | *''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) | + | *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) norr |
| | *''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”) |
| Line 41: |
Line 41: |
| | *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”) |
| | + | *Anago, Inc. v. Tecnol Med. Prods., 976 F.2d 248 (5th Cir. 1992) (antitrust law prohibits restraining trade by harming other |
| | + | competitors) |
| | + | *Norris v. Hearst Tr., 500 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2007) |
| | + | *Ginzburg v. Mem’l Healthcare Sys., 993 F. Supp. 998 (S.D. Tex. 1997) |
| | | | |
| | == Other == | | == Other == |
| − | *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) |
| Line 54: |
Line 57: |
| | *''[[Doctor’s Hosp. of Jefferson, Inc. v. Se. Med. All., Inc.]]'', 123 F.3d 301 (5th Cir. 1997) | | *''[[Doctor’s Hosp. of Jefferson, Inc. v. Se. Med. All., Inc.]]'', 123 F.3d 301 (5th Cir. 1997) |
| | *Estates of Coley v. Hillenbrand Indus., 2007 WL 9761346 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2007) | | *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) | | *''Glass v. Paxton'', 900 F.3d 233 (5th Cir. 2018) (professor lacked standing to challenge pro-[[Second Amendment]] law for students) |
| | *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) |
| Line 62: |
Line 64: |
| | *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) |
| | *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)
| |
| | *Oxford Glob. Res., Inc. v. Weekley-Cessnun, 2004 WL 2599898 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2004) | | *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) | | *Parker & Parsley Petrol. Co. v. Dresser Indus., 972 F.2d 580 (5th Cir. 1992) |