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.
6 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 177 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 State Oil Co. v. Khan.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State Oil Co. v. Khan Anchor | green | “the finder of fact must decide whether the questioned practice imposes an unreasonable restraint on competition, taking into account a variety of factors, including specific information about the relevant business, its condition before and after the restraint was imposed, and th…” | 52 |
| 2 | Capital Imaging Associates, P.C. v. Mohawk Valley Medical Associates, Inc., Mohawk Valley Physicians Plan, Inc. | green | “had an actual adverse effect on competition as a whole in the relevant market.” | 40 |
| 3 | State Oil Co. v. Khan | green | “some types of restraints ... have such predictable and pernicious anticompetitive effect, and such limited potential for procompetitive benefit, that they are deemed unlawful per se.” | 39 |
| 4 | Nynex Corp. v. Discon, Inc. | green | “precedent limits the per se rule in the boycott context to cases involving horizontal agreements among direct competitors.” | 29 |
| 5 | ES Development, Inc. v. RWM Enterprises, Inc. | green | “it is axiomatic that the typical conspiracy is rarely evidenced by explicit agreements, but must almost always be proved by inferences that may be drawn from the behavior of the alleged conspirators.” | 12 |
| 6 | K.M.B. Warehouse Distributors, Inc. v. Walker Manufacturing Company | green | “specific conduct indicating the defendant's power to control prices or exclude competition.” | 5 |
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.