§Why CasetextPricing

United States of America et al v. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings

34 Cited authorities

  1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 265,756 times   364 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 2,285 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. Philips v. Pitt Cty. Memorial Hosp

    572 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. 2009)   Cited 3,680 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts “may properly take judicial notice of matters of public record”

  4. Nemet Chevrolet v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc.

    591 F.3d 250 (4th Cir. 2009)   Cited 3,037 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a website did not contribute to alleged illegality

  5. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc.

    637 F.3d 435 (4th Cir. 2011)   Cited 2,571 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that exclusive dealing agreements are unlawful where they "severely limit ... competition for the most important customers in categories needed to gain a foothold for effective competition"

  6. 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"

  7. Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey

    488 U.S. 153 (1988)   Cited 748 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding a Navy aircraft accident investigative report was admissible

  8. 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”

  9. 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

  10. Federal Trade Commission v. Indiana Federation of Dentists

    476 U.S. 447 (1986)   Cited 553 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that deference is due FTC's assessment of business practices

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 2,895 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Making illegal "[e]very contract, combination ..., or conspiracy, in restraint of trade"