United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019-07-16
15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: civil; billboard company sued village and competitor under §§ 1 and 2 (and the Constitution) over a municipal ban on new billboard permits and the lease of village-owned property to the competitor; district court entered summary judgment for defendants; CA7 affirmed; result: claimant-lost; claim:
Uncertainty
Element state-action-immunity: holding: the court states the immunity as a holding but expressly declines to decide Paramount's only challenge to it, the possible market-participant exception (the Village acting as lessor of its own land), because the claims fail on the merits anyway. The immunity is therefore not the unconditional ground of decision.
Element state-action-immunity: polarity: the Village's ownership of the leased parcel is tagged cuts-against only because it is the basis of the market-participant argument the court left open.
Element agreement: holding: a single sentence disposes of both the conspiracy element and anticompetitive effects (the same sentence is the `held` of the restraint.rule-of-reason block); the court does not explain why the lease contract itself is not the required agreement.
Misfit
None recorded
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paramount Media Grp., Inc. v. Vill. of Bellwood — 929 F.3d 914 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paramount Media Grp., Inc. v. Vill. of Bellwood — 929 F.3d 914 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 — not · no-evidence (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; party: Paramount Media Group (billboard company, plaintiff) v. Village of Bellwood and Image Media Advertising (competitor that won the Village's lease); theory: Count V: the Village's lease of village-owned land to Image Media, under the village-property exception to its billboard-permit ban, as a conspiracy in restraint of trade; subject: party=Paramount Media Group (billboard company, plaintiff) v. Village of Bellwood and Image Media Advertising (competitor that won the Village's lease); theory=Count V: the Village's lease of village-owned land to Image Media, under the village-property exception to its billboard-permit ban, as a conspiracy in restraint of trade | municipal lease to the higher lump-sum bidder; no proof of a conspiracy to restrain trade | The Village accepted an offer from Image Media Advertising, Inc., one of Paramount's competitors.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0914-01; Unicode character offsets [559:656] (end exclusive); SHA-256 14a0297e822ab7d379d9643d32f8b1f8631a6d7e363d457a2b40a76db1da3396.Paramount doesn't offer proof of either anticompetitive effects or a conspiracy to restrain trade between Image Media and the Village.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0914-01; Unicode character offsets [14135:14269] (end exclusive); SHA-256 14a0297e822ab7d379d9643d32f8b1f8631a6d7e363d457a2b40a76db1da3396. |
| Paramount Media Grp., Inc. v. Vill. of Bellwood — 929 F.3d 914 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 — not · no-evidence (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Presumptive Rule of Reason burden-shifting analysis (antitrust market + anticompetitive effect vs procompetitive justification) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; party: Paramount Media Group (billboard company, plaintiff) v. Village of Bellwood and Image Media Advertising (competitor that won the Village's lease); theory: Count V: the Village's lease of village-owned land to Image Media, under the village-property exception to its billboard-permit ban, as a conspiracy in restraint of trade; subject: party=Paramount Media Group (billboard company, plaintiff) v. Village of Bellwood and Image Media Advertising (competitor that won the Village's lease); theory=Count V: the Village's lease of village-owned land to Image Media, under the village-property exception to its billboard-permit ban, as a conspiracy in restraint of trade The court relies on NYNEX Corp. v. Discon: a § 1 plaintiff must prove harm to the competitive process, not just to a single competitor. The relevant-market discussion that follows (municipal boundaries as the market) is addressed to the § 2 claim. | losing bidder for a municipal billboard lease shows harm to itself, not to competition | To prevail under the rule of reason in a § 1 case, Paramount must establish "(1) a contract, combination or conspiracy; (2) a resultant unreasonable restraint of trade in a relevant market; and (3) an accompanying injury."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0914-01; Unicode character offsets [13819:14041] (end exclusive); SHA-256 14a0297e822ab7d379d9643d32f8b1f8631a6d7e363d457a2b40a76db1da3396.In March 2012 the Village amended the ban to exempt "village owned or controlled property."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0914-01; Unicode character offsets [2405:2496] (end exclusive); SHA-256 14a0297e822ab7d379d9643d32f8b1f8631a6d7e363d457a2b40a76db1da3396.It instead complains that the Village and Image Media's conduct harmed it individually.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0914-01; Unicode character offsets [14270:14357] (end exclusive); SHA-256 14a0297e822ab7d379d9643d32f8b1f8631a6d7e363d457a2b40a76db1da3396.Paramount doesn't offer proof of either anticompetitive effects or a conspiracy to restrain trade between Image Media and the Village.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0914-01; Unicode character offsets [14135:14269] (end exclusive); SHA-256 14a0297e822ab7d379d9643d32f8b1f8631a6d7e363d457a2b40a76db1da3396.This allegation is insufficient to support a § 1 claim.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0914-01; Unicode character offsets [14358:14413] (end exclusive); SHA-256 14a0297e822ab7d379d9643d32f8b1f8631a6d7e363d457a2b40a76db1da3396. |
| Paramount Media Grp., Inc. v. Vill. of Bellwood — 929 F.3d 914 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · law (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Parker v. Brown state-action immunity (Midcal two-prong test: clearly articulated state policy + active state supervision) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; party: Paramount Media Group (billboard company, plaintiff) v. Village of Bellwood and Image Media Advertising (competitor that won the Village's lease); theory: Count V: the Village's lease of village-owned land to Image Media, under the village-property exception to its billboard-permit ban, as a conspiracy in restraint of trade; subject: party=Paramount Media Group (billboard company, plaintiff) v. Village of Bellwood and Image Media Advertising (competitor that won the Village's lease); theory=Count V: the Village's lease of village-owned land to Image Media, under the village-property exception to its billboard-permit ban, as a conspiracy in restraint of trade Image Media is covered derivatively: a private party cannot be held liable for conspiring with a Parker-protected entity (City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising). | home-rule municipality regulating billboards and leasing its own land; private lessee shares the municipality's immunity | Municipalities receive immunity from federal antitrust laws if they "demonstrate that their anticompetitive activities were authorized by the State pursuant to state policy to displace competition with regulation or monopoly public service."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0914-01; Unicode character offsets [11784:12025] (end exclusive); SHA-256 14a0297e822ab7d379d9643d32f8b1f8631a6d7e363d457a2b40a76db1da3396.In 2009 the Village passed Ordinance 9-4, which mandated that "no new off-site advertising sign permit will be issued by the village."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0914-01; Unicode character offsets [2074:2208] (end exclusive); SHA-256 14a0297e822ab7d379d9643d32f8b1f8631a6d7e363d457a2b40a76db1da3396.In October 2012 the Village accepted Image Media's offer without responding to Paramount.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0914-01; Unicode character offsets [2872:2961] (end exclusive); SHA-256 14a0297e822ab7d379d9643d32f8b1f8631a6d7e363d457a2b40a76db1da3396.As luck would have it, the Village owned property at 1156 Bellwood Avenue, across the street from the Sodhi property.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0914-01; Unicode character offsets [2522:2639] (end exclusive); SHA-256 14a0297e822ab7d379d9643d32f8b1f8631a6d7e363d457a2b40a76db1da3396.Illinois has thus immunized the Village from Paramount's antitrust claims.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0914-01; Unicode character offsets [12747:12821] (end exclusive); SHA-256 14a0297e822ab7d379d9643d32f8b1f8631a6d7e363d457a2b40a76db1da3396. |