| Line 49: |
Line 49: |
| | *''[[Doctor’s Hosp. of Jefferson, Inc. v. Se. Med. All., Inc.]]'', 123 F.3d 301 (5th Cir. 1997) (Section 2 claim fails for lack of a properly alleged relevant market) | | *''[[Doctor’s Hosp. of Jefferson, Inc. v. Se. Med. All., Inc.]]'', 123 F.3d 301 (5th Cir. 1997) (Section 2 claim fails for lack of a properly alleged relevant market) |
| | *Walker Process Equip. v. Food Mach. & Chem. Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965) (Section 2 antitrust violation by allegedly obtaining a patent by fraud) | | *Walker Process Equip. v. Food Mach. & Chem. Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965) (Section 2 antitrust violation by allegedly obtaining a patent by fraud) |
| | + | *''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.") |
| | | | |
| | == General procedure == | | == General procedure == |
| Line 75: |
Line 76: |
| | *Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) | | *Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) |
| | *Spectrum Sports v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447 (1993) | | *Spectrum Sports v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447 (1993) |
| − | *''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) |
| | *Suarez v. iHeartMedia + Entm’t, Inc., (W.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2019) | | *Suarez v. iHeartMedia + Entm’t, Inc., (W.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2019) |