Hospital Building Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital

Holding that a conspiracy against a North Carolina hospital had "a substantial effect on interstate commerce," and hence was covered by the Sherman Act, because it could, inter alia, reduce the hospital's purchases of out-of-state medicines and supplies

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research

Holding that claims based on continuing conspiracies accrue each time "a defendant commits an act that injures a plaintiffs business"

Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.

Holding that a parent and a wholly owned subsidiary have a "complete unity of interest" because "their objectives are common" and "their general corporate actions are guided or determined not by two separate corporate consciousness, but one"

Klehr v. A. O. Smith Corp.

Holding that "reasonable diligence" was required to invoke the doctrine of fraudulent concealment in the context of civil RICO by analogy to antitrust cases

United States v. United States Gypsum Co.

Holding that “[t]he exchange of price data and other information among competitors does not invariably have anticompetitive effect ... we have held that such exchanges of information do not constitute a per se violation of the Sherman Act”

National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma

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”

Pinkerton v. United States

Holding one conspirator may be found guilty of foreseeable substantive offenses committed by his coconspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy

National Soc. of Professional Engineers v. U.S.

Holding agreement among engineers to refuse to discuss prices with potential customers until after the initial selection of an engineer was per se illegal

Federal Trade Commission v. Indiana Federation of Dentists

Holding that deference is due FTC's assessment of business practices

Hanover Shoe v. United Shoe Machinery Corp.

Holding that an antitrust defendant could not argue that a plaintiff who had purchased a product directly from the defendant was not injured because it had passed on the illegal overcharge to its own customers, thus creating a regime under which plaintiffs can arguably recover more than "threefold the damages by him sustained"

Section 2 - Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty

In § 2 cases under the Sherman Act, as in § 7 cases under the Clayton Act (Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 325) there may be submarkets that are separate economic entities.

Section 15b - Limitation of actions

Establishing a four-year limitations period for antitrust claims

Section 16 - Judgments

Tolling the clock on private antitrust suits "during the pendency" of related suits by the federal government and "for one year thereafter"

Section 15a - Suits by United States; amount of recovery; prejudgment interest