Supreme Court of the United States · 2006-02-28
15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: civil class action (service station owners v. joint-venture parents); summary judgment for defendants reversed by CA9; certiorari; only question is whether per se (or quick look) condemnation applies to the venture's own pricing; result: claimant-lost; claim:
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
The holding is about the MODE of analysis (per se / quick look unavailable), not about whether the restraint is unreasonable. It stays `not-satisfied` because the plaintiffs' disclaimer of the rule of reason makes it claim-dispositive, but a reader of "restraint.per-se : not-satisfied" still cannot tell "this route is closed" from "the restraint was found reasonable"; nothing was found reasonable here.
The claim fails because of a litigation choice (plaintiffs eschewed rule of reason), not because any element was adjudicated against them on the facts; result claimant-lost hides that.
Reasoning straddles agreement and restraint: the Court uses single-entity language ("price setting by a single entity") to decide the restraint mode while explicitly not deciding the agreement/plurality element (fn. 2) — a relation between elements the notation cannot state.
A premise is presumed arguendo (venture is lawful, fn. 1) while the holding built on it is [law]; one basis tag per block cannot show the mixed status.
x-ancillary-restraints is a doctrine a plaintiff or a defendant may invoke (to condemn a non-ancillary restraint, or to save an ancillary one); "satisfied/not-satisfied" and fact polarity have no fixed direction for it. Here not-satisfied means the doctrine did not help the claimant.
Quick look has no element id in the committed neov2/law/15usc1.law (Argon's draft declares restraint.quick-look); the block is filed under restraint.per-se with `theory quick look` so that ids match the law file.
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 11
Elements 7–11 of 11
| Case | Statute of limitations (4-year civil under 15 U.S.C. § 15b; 5-year criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 3282) | Law-of-the-case doctrine in consolidated/MDL antitrust proceedings | Criminal mens rea: knowing participation in the conspiracy or intent to restrain trade | Ancillary restraints doctrine (restraint subordinate and collateral to a legitimate productive integration) | Horizontal cartel / hub-and-spoke conspiracy operating through vertical or dual-distribution arrangements |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texaco Inc. v. Dagher — 547 U.S. 1 (2006) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | ✗ not · lawNot counted: applied/alternative | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texaco Inc. v. Dagher — 547 U.S. 1 (2006) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 — not reached (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsCourt calls the venture "a single entity" for pricing purposes but expressly declines to decide whether § 1 is inapplicable to joint ventures (single-entity argument left open, fn. 2). | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Texaco Inc. v. Dagher — 547 U.S. 1 (2006) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 — not reached (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Restraint of trade or commerce among the several States or with foreign nations | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Texaco Inc. v. Dagher — 547 U.S. 1 (2006) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 — not reached (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Texaco Inc. v. Dagher — 547 U.S. 1 (2006) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 — not · law (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Per se illegality for naked restraints manifestly anticompetitive and lacking redeeming virtue | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law Parents no longer compete in the relevant market; the venture's pricing of its own products is "price fixing in a literal sense" only. Lawfulness of the venture itself is presumed, not decided. Kept as a merits not-satisfied (not rule-announced): respondents disclaimed any rule-of-reason claim, so closing the per se route defeats the claim itself ("respondents' antitrust claim cannot prevail"). | per-se-rejected/single-price-set-by-lawful-integrated-joint-venture | In 1998, Texaco and Shell Oil formed- a joint venture, Equilon, to consolidate their operations in the western United States, thereby ending competition between the two companies in the domestic refining and marketing of gasoline.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_547.jsonl#/us/547/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [1136:1366] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5084a5ea36bd7dae778624421ca275b1bb30e1f70daa750450037b732cb132a3.Under the joint venture agreement, Texaco and Shell Oil agreed to pool their resources and share the risks of and profits from Equilon’s activities.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_547.jsonl#/us/547/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [1367:1515] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5084a5ea36bd7dae778624421ca275b1bb30e1f70daa750450037b732cb132a3.Respondents, a class of Texaco and Shell Oil service station owners, allege that petitioners engaged in unlawful price fixing when Equilon set a single price for both Texaco and Shell Oil brand gasoline.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_547.jsonl#/us/547/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [279:482] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5084a5ea36bd7dae778624421ca275b1bb30e1f70daa750450037b732cb132a3.The formation of Equilon was approved by consent decree, subject to certain divestments and other modifications, by the Federal Trade CommissionSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_547.jsonl#/us/547/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [1714:1858] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5084a5ea36bd7dae778624421ca275b1bb30e1f70daa750450037b732cb132a3.Price-fixing agreements between two or more competitors, otherwise known as horizontal price-fixing agreements, fall into the category of arrangements that are per se unlawful.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_547.jsonl#/us/547/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [4525:4701] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5084a5ea36bd7dae778624421ca275b1bb30e1f70daa750450037b732cb132a3.As a single entity, a joint venture, like any other firm, must have the discretion to determine the prices of the products that it sells, including the discretion to sell a product under two different brands at a single, unified price.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_547.jsonl#/us/547/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [6453:6688] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5084a5ea36bd7dae778624421ca275b1bb30e1f70daa750450037b732cb132a3.These cases do not present such an agreement, however, because Texaco and Shell Oil did not compete with one another in the relevant market — namely, the sale of gasoline to service stations in the western United States — but instead participated in that market jointly through their investments in Equilon.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_547.jsonl#/us/547/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [4739:5046] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5084a5ea36bd7dae778624421ca275b1bb30e1f70daa750450037b732cb132a3.Because the pricing decisions of a legitimate joint venture do not fall within the narrow category of activity that is per se unlawful under § 1 of the Sherman Act, respondents’ antitrust claim cannot prevail.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_547.jsonl#/us/547/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [8857:9066] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5084a5ea36bd7dae778624421ca275b1bb30e1f70daa750450037b732cb132a3. |
| Texaco Inc. v. Dagher — 547 U.S. 1 (2006) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 — not · law (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Per se illegality for naked restraints manifestly anticompetitive and lacking redeeming virtue | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; theory: quick look (abbreviated rule of reason); subject: theory=quick look (abbreviated rule of reason) Respondents' fallback route, rejected "for the same reasons"; like the per se block, a merits loss because no other mode was pursued. | quick-look-rejected/single-price-set-by-lawful-integrated-joint-venture | we have applied the quick look doctrine to business activities that are so plainly anticompetitive that courts need undertake only a cursory examination before imposing antitrust liabilitySource: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_547.jsonl#/us/547/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [10393:10581] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5084a5ea36bd7dae778624421ca275b1bb30e1f70daa750450037b732cb132a3.But for the same reasons that per se liability is unwarranted here, we conclude that petitioners cannot be held liable under the quick look doctrine.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_547.jsonl#/us/547/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [10646:10795] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5084a5ea36bd7dae778624421ca275b1bb30e1f70daa750450037b732cb132a3. |
| Texaco Inc. v. Dagher — 547 U.S. 1 (2006) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 — not reached (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Presumptive Rule of Reason burden-shifting analysis (antitrust market + anticompetitive effect vs procompetitive justification) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsPlaintiffs disclaimed a rule of reason claim, which is why losing the per se question ends the case. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Texaco Inc. v. Dagher — 547 U.S. 1 (2006) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 — not · law (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Ancillary restraints doctrine (restraint subordinate and collateral to a legitimate productive integration) | not Excluded from merits counts applied / alternative basis: law "Even if we were to invoke the doctrine": the pricing policy would pass it as clearly ancillary to the sale of the venture's own products. Split from the main block as an alternative ground. | ancillary-restraint/pricing-of-ventures-own-products | And even if we were to invoke the doctrine in these cases, Equilon’s pricing policy is clearly ancillary to the sale of its own products.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_547.jsonl#/us/547/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [7963:8100] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5084a5ea36bd7dae778624421ca275b1bb30e1f70daa750450037b732cb132a3. |
| Texaco Inc. v. Dagher — 547 U.S. 1 (2006) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 — not · law (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Ancillary restraints doctrine (restraint subordinate and collateral to a legitimate productive integration) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law Ancillary-restraints is a sub-test for choosing the mode of analysis, not an element in its own right (carried under the law file's x- id). "not-satisfied" = respondents' attempt to invoke the doctrine to invalidate the pricing fails because the doctrine does not reach the venture's core activity. | doctrine-inapplicable/core-activity-of-venture | That doctrine governs the validity of restrictions imposed by a legitimate business collaboration, such as a business association or joint venture, on nonventure activities.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_547.jsonl#/us/547/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [7102:7275] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5084a5ea36bd7dae778624421ca275b1bb30e1f70daa750450037b732cb132a3.We agree with petitioners that the ancillary restraints doctrine has no application here, where the business practice being challenged involves the core activity of the joint venture itself — namely, the pricing of the very goods produced and sold by Equilon.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_547.jsonl#/us/547/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [7703:7962] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5084a5ea36bd7dae778624421ca275b1bb30e1f70daa750450037b732cb132a3. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
Price-fixing agreements between two or more competitors, otherwise known as horizontal price-fixing agreements, fall into the category of arrangements that are per se unlawful.
Texaco Inc. v. Dagher — 547 U.S. 1 (2006) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
Price-fixing agreements between two or more competitors, otherwise known as horizontal price-fixing agreements, fall into the category of arrangements that are per se unlawful.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_547.jsonl#/us/547/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [4525:4701] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5084a5ea36bd7dae778624421ca275b1bb30e1f70daa750450037b732cb132a3.Reserved for horizontal price fixing (Socony-Vacuum), bid rigging, horizontal market/customer allocation (Palmer v. BRG; Cooperative Theatres), certain horizontal group boycotts denying access to an essential facility/market (Northwest Wholesale Stationers; Tunica Web), and tying where the seller has appreciable economic power in the tying product market (Jefferson Parish). Vertical minimum and maximum resale price maintenance are no longer per se unlawful (Leegin, 551 U.S. 877 (2007); State Oil v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3 (1997)).
interpretation
As a single entity, a joint venture, like any other firm, must have the discretion to determine the prices of the products that it sells, including the discretion to sell a product under two different brands at a single, unified price.
Texaco Inc. v. Dagher — 547 U.S. 1 (2006) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
As a single entity, a joint venture, like any other firm, must have the discretion to determine the prices of the products that it sells, including the discretion to sell a product under two different brands at a single, unified price.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_547.jsonl#/us/547/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [6453:6688] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5084a5ea36bd7dae778624421ca275b1bb30e1f70daa750450037b732cb132a3.Reserved for horizontal price fixing (Socony-Vacuum), bid rigging, horizontal market/customer allocation (Palmer v. BRG; Cooperative Theatres), certain horizontal group boycotts denying access to an essential facility/market (Northwest Wholesale Stationers; Tunica Web), and tying where the seller has appreciable economic power in the tying product market (Jefferson Parish). Vertical minimum and maximum resale price maintenance are no longer per se unlawful (Leegin, 551 U.S. 877 (2007); State Oil v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3 (1997)).
interpretation
we have applied the quick look doctrine to business activities that are so plainly anticompetitive that courts need undertake only a cursory examination before imposing antitrust liability
Texaco Inc. v. Dagher — 547 U.S. 1 (2006) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
we have applied the quick look doctrine to business activities that are so plainly anticompetitive that courts need undertake only a cursory examination before imposing antitrust liabilitySource:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_547.jsonl#/us/547/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [10393:10581] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5084a5ea36bd7dae778624421ca275b1bb30e1f70daa750450037b732cb132a3.Applied when "an observer with even a rudimentary understanding of economics could conclude that the arrangements in question would have an anticompetitive effect on customers and markets" (California Dental Ass'n v. FTC, 526 U.S. 756, 770 (1999); NCAA v. Board of Regents, 468 U.S. 85 (1984)).
interpretation
That doctrine governs the validity of restrictions imposed by a legitimate business collaboration, such as a business association or joint venture, on nonventure activities.
Texaco Inc. v. Dagher — 547 U.S. 1 (2006) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
That doctrine governs the validity of restrictions imposed by a legitimate business collaboration, such as a business association or joint venture, on nonventure activities.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_547.jsonl#/us/547/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [7102:7275] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5084a5ea36bd7dae778624421ca275b1bb30e1f70daa750450037b732cb132a3.Distinguishes naked restraints (per se) from restraints reasonably ancillary to an efficiency-enhancing integration or cooperative venture (evaluated under the Rule of Reason), though Dagher holds core activity of a lawful integrated joint venture (setting the price of its own product) does not even implicate the ancillary-restraints inquiry.