§Why CasetextPricing

SolarCity Corporation v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District

RESPONSE in Opposition re: 53 First MOTION to Dismiss Case

96 Cited authorities

  1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 266,542 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. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.

    504 U.S. 451 (1992)   Cited 2,287 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "it is clearly reasonable to infer that [the defendant] has market power to raise prices and drive out competition in the aftermarkets" for service and parts despite an undisputed lack of market power in the initial product

  3. Marrese v. American Academy of Ortho. Surgeons

    470 U.S. 373 (1985)   Cited 2,006 times
    Holding that the full faith and credit statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, "directs a federal court to refer to the preclusion law of the State in which judgment was rendered"

  4. Felder v. Casey

    487 U.S. 131 (1988)   Cited 1,177 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a state law imposing a 120–day notice-of-injury prerequisite for claims against governmental defendants is preempted in actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

  5. Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown Williamson Tobacco Corp.

    509 U.S. 209 (1993)   Cited 729 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "tacit collusion" of participants in oligopolistic market to raise prices in response to higher costs is "not in itself unlawful"

  6. Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline Commc'ns, Inc.

    555 U.S. 438 (2009)   Cited 401 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding "price-squeezing" claims not cognizable under the Sherman Act

  7. Mine Workers v. Pennington

    381 U.S. 657 (1965)   Cited 1,624 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that immunity extends to petitioning conduct “either standing alone or as part of a broader scheme”

  8. Brown Shoe Co. v. United States

    370 U.S. 294 (1962)   Cited 1,818 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding judgment final and appealable where district court passed on every prayer for relief in the complaint and ordered full divestiture of stock, although court had not yet approved a divestiture plan

  9. Eastern R. Conf. v. Noerr Motors

    365 U.S. 127 (1961)   Cited 1,886 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that antitrust laws do not apply to businesses combining to lobby the government, even where such conduct has an anticompetitive purpose and an anticompetitive effect, because the alternative "would raise important constitutional questions" under the First Amendment

  10. Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc.

    499 U.S. 365 (1991)   Cited 550 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there is no "conspiracy" exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine

  11. Section 14 - Sale, etc., on agreement not to use goods of competitor

    15 U.S.C. § 14   Cited 1,019 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Forbidding exclusive dealing that substantially lessens competition

  12. Section 12-821.01 - Authorization of claim against public entity, public school or public employee

    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-821.01   Cited 613 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that claims against public employers and their employees are distinct by requiring service of separate notices of claim on each

  13. Section 1342 - Rate orders of State agencies

    28 U.S.C. § 1342   Cited 235 times
    Prohibiting federal-court interference with orders issued by state administrative agencies to public utilities

  14. Section 35 - Recovery of damages, etc., for antitrust violations from any local government, or official or employee thereof acting in an official capacity

    15 U.S.C. § 35   Cited 129 times
    Prohibiting the recovery of damages for antitrust violations from local governments and officials

  15. Section 34 - Definitions applicable to sections 34 to 36

    15 U.S.C. § 34   Cited 123 times
    Defining "local government" to include various entities "established by State law in one or more States"

  16. Section 12-820.01 - Absolute immunity

    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.01   Cited 81 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Providing conditions for absolute immunity

  17. Section 44-1402 - Contract, combination or conspiracy to restrain or monopolize trade

    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1402   Cited 30 times
    Prohibiting a "conspiracy . . . in restraint of . . . trade or commerce"

  18. Section 40-202 - Supervising and regulating public service corporations; telecommunications promotion; consumer protection; duty to comply

    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-202   Cited 13 times
    Authorizing the ACC to "supervise and regulate every public service corporation in the state"

  19. Section 30-801 - Definitions

    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 30-801   Cited 4 times

    In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires: 1. "Electricity" or "electric service" means electric energy, electric capacity or electric capacity and energy. 2. "Public power entity": (a) Means any municipal corporation, city, town or other political subdivision that is organized under state law, that generates, transmits, distributes or otherwise provides electricity and that is not a public service corporation. (b) Does not include: (i) A city or town with a population of less than seventy-five

  20. Section 30-805 - Confidential customer information; protection

    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 30-805   Cited 2 times

    A. Notwithstanding any other law, a public power entity may not release customer-specific information without specific prior written customer authorization unless the information is reasonably required for legitimate account collection activities or credit analysis activities or when such information aids in providing safe and reliable service to the customer or unless otherwise provided by court order. A public power entity shall adopt reasonable rules and procedures to ensure confidentiality. B