Antitrust cases

From Conservapedia - Reading time: 6 min

---

Antitrust cases, including those under Section 2 of the Sherman Act and on standing and subject matter jurisdiction, entail the following 78 cases (15 by the Supreme Court, 27 by the Fifth Circuit, 18 by district or state courts in Texas, and 7 by other Circuits):

Standing[edit]

• Alamo Forensic Servs. v. Bexar Cty., 2020 WL 2559956 (W.D. Tex. May 19, 2020) (lack of standing case similar to Duran decision below)
• Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Schiff, 23 F.4th 1028 (D.C. Cir. 2022)
• Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (a landmark 5-4 decision against standing)
• Duran v. City of Corpus Christi, 240 F. App’x 639 (5th Cir. 2007) (lack of standing to assert a First Amendment retaliation claim on behalf of someone else)*Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (the landmark decision by Justice Scalia denying standing in an Endangered Species Act case)
• Ward v. Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist., 393 F.3d 599 (5th Cir. 2004) (establishing that “prudential limitations on standing” require that “a litigant ... must assert his or her own legal rights and interests and cannot rest a claim to relief on the legal rights or interest of third parties”)
• Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) (standing cannot be based on the interests of others)
• U.S. v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737 (1995) (standing is a threshold jurisdictional question)
• Glass v. Paxton, 900 F.3d 233 (5th Cir. 2018) (professor lacked standing to challenge pro-Second Amendment law for students)
• Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) (lack of standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act)

First Amendment and State Action[edit]

• Afzal v. Am. Bd. of Internal Med., 2022 WL 2447115 (3d Cir. July 6, 2022) (defendant not a state actor)
• Doe v. Steward Health Care Sys., LLC, 2018 WL 4233816 (S.D. Tex. July 31, 2018)
• Hondros v. Hewlett Packard Enter., 2021 WL 5087144 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2021) (“no allegations of state action as needed to plead a constitutional violation”)
• Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976) (“It is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state.”)
• Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921 (2019) (The First Amendment “prohibits only governmental abridgement of speech” and “does not prohibit [the] private abridgement of speech.”)
• Richard v. Hoechst Celanese Chem. Group, 355 F.3d 345 (5th Cir. 2003) (the test for when private conduct can be considered state action)
• Story v. Best Way Transp., 2020 WL 5045658 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2020) (dismissing a constitutional cause of action because the “named defendants are private actors” and the plaintiff “did not allege that they are state actors or are affiliated with the state”)
• Jallali v. Nat’l Bd. of Osteopathic Med. Examiners, Inc., 2012 WL 3151553 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2012) (defendant not a state actor)
• Sanjuan v. Am. Bd. of Psychiatry & Neurology, 40 F.3d 247 (7th Cir. 1994) (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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Watts v. Northside Indep. Sch. Dist., 37 F.4th 1094 (5th Cir. 2022) (state action by a public high school football coach who ordered his players to assault a referee)
• Morris v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 277 F.3d 743 (5th Cir. 2001) (state action claim requires that the claimed constitutional deprivation must constitute state action under color of law)

Antitrust[edit]

• Apani Sw., Inc. v. Coca-Cola Enters., 300 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 2002) (alleged market for bottled water did not comport with commercial realities, and thus an antitrust claim was dismissed)
• 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.”)
• 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) 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”)
• 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.” 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)
• 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)
• 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”)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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.")
• PSKS, Inc. v. Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc., 615 F.3d 412 (5th Cir. 2010) (antitrust claim depends definition of a realistic relevant market)
• Surgical Care Ctr. of Hammond, L.C. v. Hosp. Serv., 309 F.3d 836 (5th Cir. 2002) (antitrust claim depends definition of a realistic relevant market)

General procedure[edit]

• Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (12(b) motion to dismiss)
• Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (12(b) motion to dismiss)

Other[edit]

• 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)
• Chair King, Inc. v. Houston Cellular Corp., 131 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 1997), abrogated on other grounds, Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 565 U.S. 368 (2012)
• Coinmach Corp v. Aspenwood Apartment Corp., 417 S.W.3d 909 (Tex. 2013)
• Collin Cty. v. Homeowners Ass’n for Values Essential to Neighborhoods, 915 F.2d 167 (5th Cir. 1990) (declaratory judgment action needs viable underlying claim)
• Cox Operating L.L.C. v. Wells Fargo Bk., N.A., 2020 WL 13228364 (S.D. Tex. June 16, 2020)
• Estates of Coley v. Hillenbrand Indus., 2007 WL 9761346 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2007)
• 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)
• 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)
• Nelson v. Cauley, 2005 WL 415144 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2005)
• 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)
• Pikaluk v. Horseshoe Entm’t L.P., 810 F. App’x 243 (5th Cir. 2020)
• Priester v. Lowndes County, 354 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. 2004)
• R2 Invs. LDC v. Phillips, 401 F.3d 638 (5th Cir. 2005)
• Spectrum Sports v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447 (1993)
• 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)
• Texas Beef Cattle Co. v. Green, 921 S.W.2d 203 (Tex. 1996)
• Transource Int’l, Inc. v. Trinity Indus., Inc., 725 F.2d 274 (5th Cir. 1984)
• Waggoner v. Denbury Onshore, L.L.C., 612 F. App’x 734 (5th Cir. 2015)
• Wal-Mart Stores v. Sturges, 52 S.W.3d 711 (Tex. 2001) (Texas recognizes tortious interference with existing business relations and tortious interference with prospective business relations)

See also[edit]

• administrative law standing cases