| Line 17: |
Line 17: |
| | *In Norris v. Hearst Trust, 500 F.3d 454, 466 (5th Cir. 2007), the court held that an antitrust violation would tend to cause injury to the defendant's consumers or competitors rather than to the plaintiff, who fit in neither category. | | *In Norris v. Hearst Trust, 500 F.3d 454, 466 (5th Cir. 2007), the court held that an antitrust violation would tend to cause injury to the defendant's consumers or competitors rather than to the plaintiff, who fit in neither category. |
| | | | |
| − | === Decisions that support antitrust standing ==
| + | == Decisions that support antitrust standing == |
| | *Mid-Texas Commc'ns Systems, Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 615 F.2d 1372, 1387 (5th Cir. 1980) (more on the issue an antitrust violation, not antitrust injury) | | *Mid-Texas Commc'ns Systems, Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 615 F.2d 1372, 1387 (5th Cir. 1980) (more on the issue an antitrust violation, not antitrust injury) |
| | | | |
| | *Six Twenty-Nine Productions, Inc. v. Rollins Telecasting, Inc., 365 F.2d 478, 482 (5th Cir. 1966) (holding that Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits "an enterprise from refusing to deal with another business entity when this course of action is undertaken in furtherance of monopolization of the relevant market"). But see Waggoner, 612 F. App'x at 738 (holding that there is no antitrust injury when the alleged injury is the result of conduct in a market where the plaintiff is not a participant). | | *Six Twenty-Nine Productions, Inc. v. Rollins Telecasting, Inc., 365 F.2d 478, 482 (5th Cir. 1966) (holding that Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits "an enterprise from refusing to deal with another business entity when this course of action is undertaken in furtherance of monopolization of the relevant market"). But see Waggoner, 612 F. App'x at 738 (holding that there is no antitrust injury when the alleged injury is the result of conduct in a market where the plaintiff is not a participant). |
| | | | |
| − | Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, 342 U.S. 143, 72 S. Ct. 181, 96 L. Ed. 162 (1951). In that case, a local newspaper refused to accept advertising from merchants who also advertised on a new radio station. Id. at 149-50. The Supreme Court held that such a refusal violated the Sherman Act. Id. at 152, 154. But in Lorain Journal, unlike here, standing was not at issue. Further, the radio station and the newspaper, although different media forms, were competitors in the local advertisement market. Id. at 147. | + | *Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, 342 U.S. 143, 72 S. Ct. 181, 96 L. Ed. 162 (1951). In that case, a local newspaper refused to accept advertising from merchants who also advertised on a new radio station. Id. at 149-50. The Supreme Court held that such a refusal violated the Sherman Act. Id. at 152, 154. But in Lorain Journal, unlike here, standing was not at issue. Further, the radio station and the newspaper, although different media forms, were competitors in the local advertisement market. Id. at 147. |
| | | | |
| − | United States v. Terminal Railroad Ass'n, 224 U.S. 383, 32 S. Ct. 507, 56 L. Ed. 810 (1912). But standing was not at issue in that case. | + | *United States v. Terminal Railroad Ass'n, 224 U.S. 383, 32 S. Ct. 507, 56 L. Ed. 810 (1912). But standing was not at issue in that case. |
| | [[Category:Antitrust]] | | [[Category:Antitrust]] |