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.
8 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 91 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 Todd v. Exxon Corporation.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Todd v. Exxon Corporation Anchor | green | “because market definition is a deeply fact-intensive inquiry, courts hesitate to grant motions to dismiss for failure to plead a relevant product market.” | 41 |
| 2 | Dan Richards v. Michael Mitcheff | green | “complaints need not anticipate defenses and attempt to defeat them.” | 15 |
| 3 | PSKS, Inc. v. Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. | green | “in rare circumstances, a single brand of a product or service can constitute a relevant market for antitrust purposes.” | 9 |
| 4 | Ploss v. Kraft Foods Group, Inc. | green | “courts should dismiss antitrust claims based on a market argument only when it is certain that the alleged relevant market clearly does not encompass all interchangeable substitute products” | 8 |
| 5 | Paddock Publications, Inc., Doing Business as the Daily Herald v. Chicago Tribune Company | green | “an exclusive dealing contract obliges a firm to obtain its inputs from a single source.” | 7 |
| 6 | Mercatus Group, LLC v. Lake Forest Hospital | green | “willfully acquired or maintained that power by means other than the quality of its product, its business acumen, or historical accident” | 4 |
| 7 | Schor, Gary v. Abbott Laboratories | green | “forbidden to deal in complementary products.” | 4 |
| 8 | Schor, Gary v. Abbott Laboratories | green | “ways that take advantage of costumers' sunk costs.” | 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.