Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 17 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. Anchor | green | “improper exclusion (exclusion not the result of superior efficiency) is always deliberately intended.” | 8 |
| 2 | Andrew Byars v. Bluff City News Company, Incorporated | green | “only a thorough analysis of each fact situation will reveal whether the monopolist's conduct is unreasonably anti-competitive and thus unlawful.” | 5 |
| 3 | James R. Smith, M.D. v. Northern Michigan Hospitals, Inc. | green | “an attempted monopolization under 2 occurs when a competitor, with a dangerous probability of success, engages in anti-competitive practices the specific design of which are, to build a monopoly or exclude or destroy competition.” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.