·
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
To be per se illegal, a defendant's conduct has to be so obviously anticompetitive that it has no plausibly procompetitive features-a high hurdle for plaintiffs claiming restraint of trade.
To be per se illegal, a defendant's conduct has to be so obviously anticompetitive that it has no plausibly procompetitive features-a high hurdle for plaintiffs claiming restraint of trade.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_922.jsonl#/f3d/922/0713-01; Unicode character offsets [1312:1501] (end exclusive); SHA-256 52b18aaeeab3bbac5a98f6f0309c8611637b1f238b1c1a5bcb726b6c3994b6b0.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)).