§Why CasetextPricing

Madison Square Garden, L.P. v. National Hockey League et al

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 63 MOTION to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document

72 Cited authorities

  1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 266,625 times   365 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

  2. New Hampshire v. Maine

    532 U.S. 742 (2001)   Cited 4,543 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, “New Hampshire is equitably barred from asserting—contrary to its position in the 1970's litigation—that the inland Piscataqua River boundary runs along the Maine shore”

  3. Knowles v. Iowa

    525 U.S. 113 (1998)   Cited 867 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when an officer cited a driver for speeding, the need to find evidence did not justify a search of a car because the officer had already obtained all the evidence necessary to prosecute the offense and no more evidence would be found in the car

  4. Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.

    467 U.S. 752 (1984)   Cited 1,434 times   29 Legal Analyses
    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"

  5. Verizon Comm. v. Law Offices of Trinko

    540 U.S. 398 (2004)   Cited 506 times   54 Legal Analyses
    Holding even a monopolist has no duty to cooperate with rivals

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

    468 U.S. 85 (1984)   Cited 664 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”

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

    435 U.S. 679 (1978)   Cited 741 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding agreement among engineers to refuse to discuss prices with potential customers until after the initial selection of an engineer was per se illegal

  8. Federal Trade Commission v. Indiana Federation of Dentists

    476 U.S. 447 (1986)   Cited 554 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that deference is due FTC's assessment of business practices

  9. Business Electronics v. Sharp Electronics

    485 U.S. 717 (1988)   Cited 509 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

  10. Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.

    441 U.S. 1 (1979)   Cited 578 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"

  11. Section 1 - Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

    15 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 2,905 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Making illegal "[e]very contract, combination ..., or conspiracy, in restraint of trade"

  12. Section 18 - Acquisition by one corporation of stock of another

    15 U.S.C. § 18   Cited 1,506 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Barring an acquisition "where in any line of commerce ... the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition"