REPLY In Support Of Motion NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Liability As To Count I PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PARIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 62 REDACTED VERSION OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
468 U.S. 85 (1984) Cited 665 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding that NCAA restrictions on televising college football games are subject to Rule of Reason analysis for the “critical” reason that “horizontal restraints on competition are essential if the product is to be available at all”
485 U.S. 717 (1988) Cited 510 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a vertical restraint of trade is not per se illegal under § 1 of the Sherman Act unless it includes some agreement on price or price levels
441 U.S. 1 (1979) Cited 579 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding generally that blanket and per-program licenses by ASCAP and BMI were not per se antitrust violations, but rather these licenses, "when attacked, . . . should be subjected to a more discriminating examination under the rule of reason"
405 U.S. 596 (1972) Cited 649 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an agreement between competitors at the same level of the market structure to allocate territories in order to minimize competition" is a per se violation