·
Case and law context
Interpretation-only case: no CASE context or instance blocks recorded in this snapshot.
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
2d 168 (1993) ("Even an act of pure malice by one business competitor against another does not, without more, state a claim under the federal antitrust laws"); 3 AREEDA & HOVENKAMP , ANTITRUST LAW supra, P651d, at 80 ("In the presence of substantial market power, some kinds of tortious behavior could anticompetitively create or sustain a monopoly, [but] it is wrong categorically to condemn such practices .
2d 168 (1993) ("Even an act of pure malice by one business competitor against another does not, without more, state a claim under the federal antitrust laws"); 3 AREEDA & HOVENKAMP , ANTITRUST LAW supra, P651d, at 80 ("In the presence of substantial market power, some kinds of tortious behavior could anticompetitively create or sustain a monopoly, [but] it is wrong categorically to condemn such practices .Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_377.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/377/0506-01; Unicode character offsets [28564:28973] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8fee9334f8a023bc551820e848c61bbe5abc1278d90533adce759ca603a26796.Because every commercial contract restrains trade in some literal sense, § 1 outlaws only *unreasonable* restraints of trade (Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911); State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 10 (1997)), evaluated via one of three analytical modes (`restraint.per-se`, `restraint.quick-look`, or `restraint.rule-of-reason`).