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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 6 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 Medic Air Corporation v. Air Ambulance Authority.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Medic Air Corporation v. Air Ambulance Authority Anchor | green | “under nugget and medic air corp. v. air ambulance auth., 843 f.2d 1187 (9th cir.1988), private conduct is immunized if it is a foreseeable result of state agency action and if circumstances justify an inference that the agency intended to authorize the conduct.” | 3 |
| 2 | Praxair, Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Co. Florida Power Corp. | green | “if the defendant engaged in anticompetitive conduct presumably because of a territorial agreement, but the area in question was never approved by the commission, the defendant's action would not merit state action immunity because of the lack of 'active state supervision.” | 3 |
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.