15 U.S.C. § 2
Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2,822
cases (326 in the last 5 years), 1930–2026 · leading case: ZF Meritor LLC v. Eaton Corp., 696 F.3d 254 (3d Cir. 2012).
ZF Meritor LLC v. Eaton Corp., 696 F.3d 254 (3d Cir. 2012). “§ 1 ; acted unlawfully to maintain a monopoly, in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2 ; and entered into illegal restrictive dealing agreements, in violation of Section 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.”
Verizon Commc'ns Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis v. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398 (2004). “The complaint sought damages and injunctive relief for violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. § 2 , pursuant to the remedy provisions of §§ 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat.”
Lantec, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., 306 F.3d 1003 (10th Cir. 2002). “§ 1 ; (3) Novell monopolized, attempted to monopolize, and conspired with WordPerfect to monopolize the groupware for NetWare market in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 2 ; and (4) Novell unlawfully used its monopoly power in the network operating system market as leverage to gain a…”
In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litig., 383 F. Supp. 3d 187 (S.D. Ill. 2019). “Rogers brings seventeen causes of action pursuant to (1) the Sherman Act Section 2, 15 U.S.C. § 2 ; (2) the Sherman Act Section 1, 15 U.”
Copperweld Corp. v. Indep. Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (1984). “209 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 2 . Before trial respondent dismissed Smith as a defendant and dismissed its § 2 monopolization count.”
Tal v. Hogan, 453 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2006). “§ 1962 , and the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2 . They also asserted pendant state law claims for tortious interference with business and fraudulent condemnation of Tal, Inc.”
Viamedia, Incorporation v. Comcast Corp., 951 F.3d 429 (7th Cir. 2020). “has sued defendant Comcast Corporation for violating Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2 . Viamedia accuses Comcast of us- ing its monopoly power in one service market to exclude com- petition and gain monopoly power in another service market.”
Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., Cross-Appellee v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., Cross-Appellant, 725 F.2d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “Accordingly, we hold that proof of relevant market is requisite to a holding that 15 U.S.C. § 2 has been violated. Sowa cites cases that rely on Lessig v.”
Lenox MacLaren Surgical Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc., 847 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2017). “15 U.S.C. § 2 . Lenox alleged that Defendants engaged in illegal activity to advance a coordinated, anticompetitive scheme in which a related non-party, Medtronic Sofa-mor Danek USA, Inc.”
Arthur v. Microsoft Corp., 676 N.W.2d 29 (Neb. 2004). “" 15 U.S.C. § 2 (2000). Pursuant to 15 U.S.”
Atl. Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328 (1990). “§ 1 , an attempt to monopolize the local retail gasoline sales market in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. § 2 , and other misconduct not relevant here.”
E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 637 F.3d 435 (4th Cir. 2011). “Kolon counterclaimed that DuPont had monopolized and had attempted to monopolize the para-aramid market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2 . 1 The primary thrust of Kolon’s second amended counterclaim (“Counterclaim”) is that DuPont illegally used…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.