§Why CasetextPricing

State of Colorado et al v. Warner Chilcott Holdings Company III, Ltd. et al

Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Leave to File Under Seal

28 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.

    551 U.S. 877 (2007)   Cited 459 times   74 Legal Analyses
    Holding that vertical agreements are not per se illegal

  3. 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”

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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"

  7. Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society

    457 U.S. 332 (1982)   Cited 471 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that price fixing between medical organizations is per se unreasonable

  8. United States v. Topco Associates

    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

  9. California Dental Ass'n v. Federal Trade Commission

    526 U.S. 756 (1999)   Cited 203 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that full rule of reason analysis was required where challenged restraint "might plausibly be thought to have a net procompetitive effect, or possibly no effect at all on competition"

  10. Palmer v. BRG of Georgia, Inc.

    498 U.S. 46 (1990)   Cited 229 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding an agreement between bar review course providers dividing market territories for the purpose of raising prices was per se illegal

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 2,903 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Making illegal "[e]very contract, combination ..., or conspiracy, in restraint of trade"

  12. Section 26 - Injunctive relief for private parties; exception; costs

    15 U.S.C. § 26   Cited 1,450 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing injunctive relief against "threatened loss or damage by a violation of the antitrust laws"