Source: cases/15usc1/VARIANTS.md
# 15usc1 -- variant catalogue (GENERATED by tools/casedsl.py variants; do not edit)
12 cases, 89 blocks, 210 verbatim quotes. **29 instances** (statute applied to the case's own facts, decided on the merits by this court); 28 applied-but-not-reached; 32 other rulings (comparator / rule-announced / background citations, or procedural / hypothetical / alternative / dissent / lower-court scope) listed separately at the end and NOT counted in the catalogue.
Citation role per case: applied 9, rule-announced 3.
Holding codes: S = satisfied, N = not-satisfied, - = not-reached. Pointer = `file.case` @first-quote-offset.
## Coverage
| element | cases | S | N | - | genera | variants |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| agreement | 11 | 10 | 7 | 2 | 8 | 17 |
| restraint | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| restraint.market-power | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| restraint.per-se | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| restraint.rule-of-reason | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| commerce | 9 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 |
| injury | 8 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 3 |
| injury.amount | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| standing | 4 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| x-ancillary-restraints | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| defense: state-action-immunity | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| defense: x-single-entity | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
## element `agreement`
_"contract, combination ... or conspiracy": concerted action between separate economic actors (plurality; proof/pleading of agreement)_
- **capacity-to-conspire/** -- 5 (S 2 / N 3 / - 0)
- `capacity-to-conspire/agent-implementing-principals-decision`
- N [law] `f2d-589-451-harvey-v-fearless-farris.case` @6303 -- Harvey v. Fearless Farris Wholesale, Inc. (1979) -- party=Lind (sole owner) and Olson (general manager); neither named as a defendant; theory=owner and his general manager as the co-conspirators
- `capacity-to-conspire/commonly-owned-corporations-single-decisionmaker`
- N [no-evidence] `f2d-589-451-harvey-v-fearless-farris.case` @862 -- Harvey v. Fearless Farris Wholesale, Inc. (1979) -- party=Fearless Farris Wholesale and the five Retail Companies (the only defendants); theory=conspiracy in fact among the commonly owned corporations
- `capacity-to-conspire/jointly-owned-licensing-corporation-as-instrumentality`
- S [law] `us-560-183-american-needle-v-nfl.case` @1408 -- American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League (2010) -- party=the teams acting through NFLP (their jointly owned licensing corporation)
- `capacity-to-conspire/separate-incorporation-alone`
- N [law] `f2d-589-451-harvey-v-fearless-farris.case` @4662 -- Harvey v. Fearless Farris Wholesale, Inc. (1979) -- theory="constructive plurality": the sole owner embodies six corporations
- `capacity-to-conspire/separately-owned-teams-licensing-ip-collectively`
- S [law] `us-560-183-american-needle-v-nfl.case` @823 -- American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League (2010) -- party=the 32 NFL teams, acting directly among themselves
- **parallel-conduct/** -- 3 (S 0 / N 3 / - 0)
- `parallel-conduct/dealer-compliance-with-vertical-restriction`
- N [no-evidence] `f2d-361-874-ford-v-websters-auto-sales.case` @15983 -- Ford Motor Co. v. Webster's Auto Sales, Inc. (1966) -- party=the Ford dealers among themselves; theory=tacit horizontal agreement implied from the vertical agreements
- `parallel-conduct/parallel-non-entry-into-each-others-territories`
- N [pleaded] `us-550-544-bell-atlantic-v-twombly.case` @4457 -- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (2007) -- theory=agreement among the ILECs not to compete in one another's territories
- `parallel-conduct/parallel-resistance-to-new-entrants`
- N [pleaded] `us-550-544-bell-atlantic-v-twombly.case` @3545 -- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (2007) -- theory=conspiracy among the ILECs to thwart competitive entry by CLECs
- **vertical-agreement/** -- 3 (S 3 / N 0 / - 0)
- `vertical-agreement/announcement-plus-dealer-compliance`
- S [proved] `f2d-361-874-ford-v-websters-auto-sales.case` @13603 -- Ford Motor Co. v. Webster's Auto Sales, Inc. (1966) -- party=Ford and each of its other complying dealers; theory=series of vertical agreements ("announcement plus" dealer compliance)
- `vertical-agreement/manufacturer-retailer-minimum-resale-price-pledge`
- S [conceded] `us-551-877-leegin-v-psks.case` @2544 -- Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. (2007)
- `vertical-agreement/resale-restriction-instigated-by-complaining-dealer`
- S [proved] `f2d-361-874-ford-v-websters-auto-sales.case` @2281 -- Ford Motor Co. v. Webster's Auto Sales, Inc. (1966) -- party=Ford and Automobile Sales Company (the complaining Springfield dealer)
- **(not reached, no variant)/** -- 2 (S 0 / N 0 / - 2)
- `(not reached, no variant)` -- 2 (S 0 / N 0 / - 2)
- - `f-supp-864-1175-levine-v-central-florida-medical.case` -- Levine v. Central Florida Medical Affiliates, Inc. (1994) -- count=Count I
- - `us-547-1-texaco-v-dagher.case` -- Texaco Inc. v. Dagher (2006)
- **direct-evidence/** -- 2 (S 2 / N 0 / - 0)
- `direct-evidence/immunized-coconspirator-testimony-of-meeting`
- S [proved] `f2d-845-1367-us-v-cooperative-theatres.case` @2808 -- United States v. Cooperative Theatres of Ohio, Inc. (1988) -- party=Co-Op and Beaupain (appellants)
- `direct-evidence/participant-admission-of-gentlemens-agreement-to-boycott`
- S [triable] `f3d-496-403-tunica-web-advertising-v-tunica-casino-operators.case` @3330 -- Tunica Web Advertising v. Tunica Casino Operators Ass'n (2007) -- count=the casinos' alleged agreement to refuse to deal with TWA individually (May 2001 and November 2002)
- **concerted-action/** -- 1 (S 0 / N 1 / - 0)
- `concerted-action/joint-rejection-of-joint-offer`
- N [law] `f3d-496-403-tunica-web-advertising-v-tunica-casino-operators.case` @2252 -- Tunica Web Advertising v. Tunica Casino Operators Ass'n (2007) -- count=the casinos' May 30, 2001 joint rejection of TWA's collective lease proposal
- **group-boycott-conspiracy/** -- 1 (S 1 / N 0 / - 0)
- `group-boycott-conspiracy/partial-dealing-in-context-of-well-pled-parallel-boycott`
- S [pleaded] `f-supp-3d-351-698-in-re-interest-rate-swaps.case` @16924 -- In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. (2018) -- theory=existence of a Dealer conspiracy whose objects included trueEX's platform
- **hub-and-spoke/** -- 1 (S 1 / N 0 / - 0)
- `hub-and-spoke/buyers-knowingly-sharing-common-purchasing-agent`
- S [pleaded] `f-supp-2d-385-740-north-jackson-pharmacy-v-caremark.case` @6180 -- North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. v. Caremark Rx, Inc. (2005) -- count=Claim I
- **joinder-in-conspiracy/** -- 1 (S 1 / N 0 / - 0)
- `joinder-in-conspiracy/scope-extends-to-additional-target-thin-individual-allegations`
- S [pleaded] `f-supp-3d-351-698-in-re-interest-rate-swaps.case` @25418 -- In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. (2018) -- party=each individual Dealer defendant (ruled on collectively); theory=joinder in the conspiracy's third object (trueEX's platform)
## element `restraint`
_unreasonable "restraint of trade": mode of analysis (per se / quick look / rule of reason) and the anticompetitive effect; sub: restraint.per-se, restraint.rule-of-reason, restraint.market-power_
- **(not reached, no variant)/** -- 3 (S 0 / N 0 / - 3)
- `(not reached, no variant)` -- 3 (S 0 / N 0 / - 3)
- - `f-supp-3d-351-698-in-re-interest-rate-swaps.case` -- In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. (2018)
- - `f2d-589-451-harvey-v-fearless-farris.case` -- Harvey v. Fearless Farris Wholesale, Inc. (1979)
- - `us-550-544-bell-atlantic-v-twombly.case` -- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (2007)
## element `restraint.market-power`
_unreasonable "restraint of trade": mode of analysis (per se / quick look / rule of reason) and the anticompetitive effect; sub: restraint.per-se, restraint.rule-of-reason, restraint.market-power_
- **(not reached, no variant)/** -- 1 (S 0 / N 0 / - 1)
- `(not reached, no variant)`
- - `f3d-496-403-tunica-web-advertising-v-tunica-casino-operators.case` -- Tunica Web Advertising v. Tunica Casino Operators Ass'n (2007)
## element `restraint.per-se`
_unreasonable "restraint of trade": mode of analysis (per se / quick look / rule of reason) and the anticompetitive effect; sub: restraint.per-se, restraint.rule-of-reason, restraint.market-power_
- **horizontal-customer-allocation/** -- 1 (S 1 / N 0 / - 0)
- `horizontal-customer-allocation/no-solicitation-of-existing-accounts`
- S [law] `f2d-845-1367-us-v-cooperative-theatres.case` @984 -- United States v. Cooperative Theatres of Ohio, Inc. (1988)
- **per-se/** -- 1 (S 1 / N 0 / - 0)
- `per-se/vertical-agreements-to-exclude-class-of-resellers`
- S [law] `f2d-361-874-ford-v-websters-auto-sales.case` @4112 -- Ford Motor Co. v. Webster's Auto Sales, Inc. (1966) -- party=Ford and its collaborating dealers (the vertical agreements found above)
- **per-se-rejected/** -- 1 (S 0 / N 1 / - 0)
- `per-se-rejected/single-price-set-by-lawful-integrated-joint-venture`
- N [law] `us-547-1-texaco-v-dagher.case` @1136 -- Texaco Inc. v. Dagher (2006)
- **quick-look-rejected/** -- 1 (S 0 / N 1 / - 0)
- `quick-look-rejected/single-price-set-by-lawful-integrated-joint-venture`
- N [law] `us-547-1-texaco-v-dagher.case` @10393 -- Texaco Inc. v. Dagher (2006) -- theory=quick look (abbreviated rule of reason)
## element `restraint.rule-of-reason`
_unreasonable "restraint of trade": mode of analysis (per se / quick look / rule of reason) and the anticompetitive effect; sub: restraint.per-se, restraint.rule-of-reason, restraint.market-power_
- **(not reached, no variant)/** -- 4 (S 0 / N 0 / - 4)
- `(not reached, no variant)` -- 4 (S 0 / N 0 / - 4)
- - `f2d-361-874-ford-v-websters-auto-sales.case` -- Ford Motor Co. v. Webster's Auto Sales, Inc. (1966)
- - `f3d-496-403-tunica-web-advertising-v-tunica-casino-operators.case` -- Tunica Web Advertising v. Tunica Casino Operators Ass'n (2007)
- - `us-547-1-texaco-v-dagher.case` -- Texaco Inc. v. Dagher (2006)
- - `us-560-183-american-needle-v-nfl.case` -- American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League (2010)
## element `commerce`
_"trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations"_
- **(not reached, no variant)/** -- 9 (S 0 / N 0 / - 9)
- `(not reached, no variant)` -- 9 (S 0 / N 0 / - 9)
- - `f-supp-3d-351-698-in-re-interest-rate-swaps.case` -- In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. (2018)
- - `f-supp-864-1175-levine-v-central-florida-medical.case` -- Levine v. Central Florida Medical Affiliates, Inc. (1994)
- - `f2d-361-874-ford-v-websters-auto-sales.case` -- Ford Motor Co. v. Webster's Auto Sales, Inc. (1966)
- - `f2d-589-451-harvey-v-fearless-farris.case` -- Harvey v. Fearless Farris Wholesale, Inc. (1979)
- - `f2d-845-1367-us-v-cooperative-theatres.case` -- United States v. Cooperative Theatres of Ohio, Inc. (1988)
- - `f3d-496-403-tunica-web-advertising-v-tunica-casino-operators.case` -- Tunica Web Advertising v. Tunica Casino Operators Ass'n (2007)
- - `us-547-1-texaco-v-dagher.case` -- Texaco Inc. v. Dagher (2006)
- - `us-550-544-bell-atlantic-v-twombly.case` -- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (2007)
- - `us-560-183-american-needle-v-nfl.case` -- American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League (2010)
## element `injury`
_private suit (Clayton Act §4/§16): antitrust injury, fact of damage_
- **(not reached, no variant)/** -- 6 (S 0 / N 0 / - 6)
- `(not reached, no variant)` -- 6 (S 0 / N 0 / - 6)
- - `f-supp-3d-351-698-in-re-interest-rate-swaps.case` -- In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. (2018)
- - `f2d-589-451-harvey-v-fearless-farris.case` -- Harvey v. Fearless Farris Wholesale, Inc. (1979)
- - `f3d-496-403-tunica-web-advertising-v-tunica-casino-operators.case` -- Tunica Web Advertising v. Tunica Casino Operators Ass'n (2007)
- - `us-547-1-texaco-v-dagher.case` -- Texaco Inc. v. Dagher (2006)
- - `us-550-544-bell-atlantic-v-twombly.case` -- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (2007)
- - `us-560-183-american-needle-v-nfl.case` -- American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League (2010)
- **antitrust-injury/** -- 2 (S 0 / N 2 / - 0)
- `antitrust-injury/plaintiff-seeks-share-of-supracompetitive-profits`
- N [no-evidence] `f-supp-864-1175-levine-v-central-florida-medical.case` @3400 -- Levine v. Central Florida Medical Affiliates, Inc. (1994) -- party=CFMA, Healthchoice; count=Count I (exclusion from closed-panel PPO); theory=plaintiff wants admission to the closed panel (deposition version)
- `antitrust-injury/suspended-physician-still-practicing-elsewhere`
- N [no-evidence] `f-supp-864-1175-levine-v-central-florida-medical.case` @3978 -- Levine v. Central Florida Medical Affiliates, Inc. (1994) -- party=Sand Lake, ORHS/ORMC; count=Count III (concerted suspension of hospital privileges)
- **fact-of-damage/** -- 1 (S 1 / N 0 / - 0)
- `fact-of-damage/lost-supply-from-principal-supplier-joining-boycott`
- S [proved] `f2d-361-874-ford-v-websters-auto-sales.case` @5404 -- Ford Motor Co. v. Webster's Auto Sales, Inc. (1966)
## element `injury.amount`
_private suit (Clayton Act §4/§16): antitrust injury, fact of damage_
- **amount-of-damages/** -- 1 (S 1 / N 0 / - 0)
- `amount-of-damages/lost-profits-estimated-from-past-earnings`
- S [proved] `f2d-361-874-ford-v-websters-auto-sales.case` @34753 -- Ford Motor Co. v. Webster's Auto Sales, Inc. (1966)
## element `standing`
_private suit: antitrust standing / proper plaintiff (directness, indirect purchaser)_
- **(not reached, no variant)/** -- 3 (S 0 / N 0 / - 3)
- `(not reached, no variant)` -- 3 (S 0 / N 0 / - 3)
- - `f-supp-3d-351-698-in-re-interest-rate-swaps.case` -- In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. (2018)
- - `f2d-361-874-ford-v-websters-auto-sales.case` -- Ford Motor Co. v. Webster's Auto Sales, Inc. (1966)
- - `us-550-544-bell-atlantic-v-twombly.case` -- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (2007)
- **efficient-enforcer/** -- 1 (S 0 / N 1 / - 0)
- `efficient-enforcer/speculative-damages-from-hypothetical-open-market`
- N [no-evidence] `f-supp-864-1175-levine-v-central-florida-medical.case` @29137 -- Levine v. Central Florida Medical Affiliates, Inc. (1994) -- party=CFMA, Healthchoice; count=Count I (exclusion from closed-panel PPO); theory=plaintiff wants the panel opened to all physicians (affidavit version)
## element `x-ancillary-restraints`
- **doctrine-inapplicable/** -- 1 (S 0 / N 1 / - 0)
- `doctrine-inapplicable/core-activity-of-venture`
- N [law] `us-547-1-texaco-v-dagher.case` @7102 -- Texaco Inc. v. Dagher (2006)
## defense `state-action-immunity`
- **private-parties/** -- 1 (S 0 / N 1 / - 0)
- `private-parties/trade-association-members-claiming-parker-lgaa-noerr`
- N [law] `f3d-496-403-tunica-web-advertising-v-tunica-casino-operators.case` @5963 -- Tunica Web Advertising v. Tunica Casino Operators Ass'n (2007) -- party=the casino defendants
## defense `x-single-entity`
- **single-entity/** -- 1 (S 0 / N 1 / - 0)
- `single-entity/sports-league-joint-venture`
- N [law] `us-560-183-american-needle-v-nfl.case` @2454 -- American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League (2010)
## Other rulings (not instances; excluded from the counts above)
| role | scope | block | holding | variant | case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| applied | alternative | element agreement | satisfied [assumed] | `hospital-and-medical-staff/sham-peer-review` | `f-supp-864-1175-levine-v-central-florida-medical.case` -- count=Count III |
| applied | alternative | element agreement | not-satisfied [law] | `capacity-to-conspire/officers-acting-for-the-same-corporations` | `f2d-589-451-harvey-v-fearless-farris.case` -- party=Lind and Olson; neither named as a defendant; theory=even if two individual minds had met |
| applied | alternative | element restraint.market-power | not-reached | | `f-supp-864-1175-levine-v-central-florida-medical.case` -- count=Count I |
| applied | alternative | element restraint.rule-of-reason | not-satisfied [no-evidence] | `anticompetitive-effect/single-competitor-excluded-no-market-proof` | `f-supp-864-1175-levine-v-central-florida-medical.case` -- count=Count III |
| applied | alternative | element x-ancillary-restraints | not-satisfied [law] | `ancillary-restraint/pricing-of-ventures-own-products` | `us-547-1-texaco-v-dagher.case` |
| applied | lower-court | element standing | not-satisfied [law] | `improper-plaintiff/shareholder-of-injured-corporation` | `f3d-496-403-tunica-web-advertising-v-tunica-casino-operators.case` -- party=Graziosi individually (sole shareholder and CEO of TWA) |
| applied | procedural | defense statute-of-limitations | not-reached | `fraudulent-concealment-tolling/deferred-to-discovery` | `f-supp-3d-351-698-in-re-interest-rate-swaps.case` -- count=conduct before June 14, 2014 |
| applied | procedural | defense x-law-of-the-case | not-satisfied [law] | `offensive-by-plaintiff/separate-mdl-action-must-state-own-claim` | `f-supp-3d-351-698-in-re-interest-rate-swaps.case` |
| background | procedural | element x-horizontal-cartel-via-dual-distribution | not-reached | `not-preserved/manufacturer-owner-also-retailer` | `us-551-877-leegin-v-psks.case` -- theory=horizontal cartel: the manufacturer's owner is also a competing retailer |
| rule-announced | alternative | element restraint.per-se | not-reached | `per-se-rejected/closed-panel-ppo-effect-not-obvious` | `f-supp-864-1175-levine-v-central-florida-medical.case` -- count=Count I |
| rule-announced | merits | element agreement | not-reached | `vertical-agreement/coerced-acquiescence-in-tie` | `f3d-117-1137-systemcare-v-wang-laboratories.case` |
| rule-announced | merits | element agreement.x-monsanto-exclusion-of-independent-action | not-reached | `express-tie/buyer-acquiescence-excludes-independent-action` | `f3d-117-1137-systemcare-v-wang-laboratories.case` |
| rule-announced | merits | element commerce | not-reached | | `f-supp-2d-385-740-north-jackson-pharmacy-v-caremark.case` |
| rule-announced | merits | element commerce | not-reached | | `f3d-117-1137-systemcare-v-wang-laboratories.case` |
| rule-announced | merits | element commerce | not-reached | | `us-551-877-leegin-v-psks.case` |
| rule-announced | merits | element injury | not-reached | | `f-supp-2d-385-740-north-jackson-pharmacy-v-caremark.case` |
| rule-announced | merits | element injury | not-reached | | `f3d-117-1137-systemcare-v-wang-laboratories.case` |
| rule-announced | merits | element injury | not-reached | | `us-551-877-leegin-v-psks.case` |
| rule-announced | merits | element intent | not-reached | `knowing-joinder/per-se-no-proof-of-anticipated-effects` | `f2d-845-1367-us-v-cooperative-theatres.case` |
| rule-announced | merits | element restraint | not-reached | | `f3d-117-1137-systemcare-v-wang-laboratories.case` |
| rule-announced | merits | element restraint.market-power | not-reached | | `f-supp-2d-385-740-north-jackson-pharmacy-v-caremark.case` |
| rule-announced | merits | element restraint.market-power | not-reached | | `f3d-117-1137-systemcare-v-wang-laboratories.case` |
| rule-announced | merits | element restraint.market-power | not-reached | `rule-of-reason-factor/market-power-of-manufacturer-or-retailer` | `us-551-877-leegin-v-psks.case` |
| rule-announced | merits | element restraint.per-se | not-reached | `ancillary-restraint/cooperative-buying-through-common-agent` | `f-supp-2d-385-740-north-jackson-pharmacy-v-caremark.case` -- party=Plan Sponsors, acting through Caremark as their common agent; count=Claim I (common-agent claim) |
| rule-announced | merits | element restraint.per-se | not-reached | `horizontal-price-fixing/competing-intermediaries-fixing-reimbursement-rates` | `f-supp-2d-385-740-north-jackson-pharmacy-v-caremark.case` -- party=Caremark and rival PBMs; count=Claim II |
| rule-announced | merits | element restraint.per-se | not-reached | `group-boycott/horizontal-buyers-boycotting-non-competitor-supplier` | `f3d-496-403-tunica-web-advertising-v-tunica-casino-operators.case` |
| rule-announced | merits | element restraint.per-se | not-reached | `per-se-rejected/vertical-minimum-resale-price-maintenance` | `us-551-877-leegin-v-psks.case` |
| rule-announced | merits | element restraint.per-se | not-reached | `per-se-rejected/cooperation-essential-to-product` | `us-560-183-american-needle-v-nfl.case` |
| rule-announced | merits | element restraint.rule-of-reason | not-reached | | `f-supp-2d-385-740-north-jackson-pharmacy-v-caremark.case` -- count=Claim I |
| rule-announced | merits | element restraint.rule-of-reason | not-reached | `rule-of-reason/vertical-minimum-resale-price-maintenance` | `us-551-877-leegin-v-psks.case` |
| rule-announced | merits | element standing | not-reached | | `f-supp-2d-385-740-north-jackson-pharmacy-v-caremark.case` |
| rule-announced | merits | element standing | not-reached | | `f3d-117-1137-systemcare-v-wang-laboratories.case` |
## Fact-line polarity
100 fact lines: cuts-against 31, supports 69; 3 of them flagged `absent` (the court notes what is NOT alleged or proved).