AND · 15usc1:restraint.market-power
Under the Rule of Reason (absent direct proof of actual detrimental effects on price or output under FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447 (1986)), plaintiff must define a relevant product and geographic market and prove defendants possess market power within it.
Exact element source
in restraint of trade or commerceSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title15.jsonl#title15_sec1; Unicode character offsets [135:168] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9c248965c2c712de1e3f3d52a17be4c90dfdcac5d3f9fea0b7220b164e2c2973.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unclassified route provisional; 4 observed cases | no definition yet | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 4 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (4). Excluded context examples:North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. v. Caremark Rx, Inc. — 385 F. Supp. 2d 740 (2005) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2005 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc1: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) · rule-announced/merits · not counted Levine v. Central Florida Medical Affiliates, Inc. — 864 F. Supp. 1175 (1994) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · 1994 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/alternative · not counted Systemcare, Inc. v. Wang Laboratories Corp. — 117 F.3d 1137 (1997) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted |
| _whole accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. — 551 U.S. 877 (2007) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2007 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. v. Caremark Rx, Inc. — 385 F. Supp. 2d 740 (2005) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2005 — not reached (15usc1: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) | Relevant product/geographic market definition and market power under the Rule of Reason | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / meritsMarket power is necessary under the rule of reason but cannot convert a restraint into a per se violation; whether Caremark has it is not decided. | Unspecified route | there appears to be no authority (and indeed none is found in the cases North Jackson cites) to support the notion that substantial market power is a sufficient, rather than a necessary, basis for finding that a given restraint is per se unlawful under Section 1Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_385.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/385/0740-01; Unicode character offsets [29159:29421] (end exclusive); SHA-256 061c34d0b500376f04d011b5ab2e2f1ac60dba2bb321f15089be5be4b7c5e5d9. |
| Levine v. Central Florida Medical Affiliates, Inc. — 864 F. Supp. 1175 (1994) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · 1994 — not reached (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Relevant product/geographic market definition and market power under the Rule of Reason | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / alternative count: Count I; subject: count=Count I Court criticises a single-brand market (services to members of defendant's own PPO) as circular but expressly does not rest on it. The test sentence ("Plaintiff must, therefore, define the market and establish market power") is filed as the rule line of the restraint.per-se Count I block. | Unspecified route | He has limited the product market to a service rendered solely by Defendants.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [34782:34859] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3. |
| Systemcare, Inc. v. Wang Laboratories Corp. — 117 F.3d 1137 (1997) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997 — not reached (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Relevant product/geographic market definition and market power under the Rule of Reason | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Tunica Web Advertising v. Tunica Casino Operators Ass'n — 496 F.3d 403 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007 — not reached (15usc1: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) | Relevant product/geographic market definition and market power under the Rule of Reason | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. — 551 U.S. 877 (2007) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2007 — not reached (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Relevant product/geographic market definition and market power under the Rule of Reason | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits theory: vertical minimum resale price maintenance agreements between manufacturer and retailers; subject: theory=vertical minimum resale price maintenance agreements between manufacturer and retailers | rule-of-reason-factor/market-power-of-manufacturer-or-retailer | As a final matter, that a dominant manufacturer or retailer can abuse resale price maintenance for anticompetitive purposes may not be a serious concern unless the relevant entity has market power.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_551.jsonl#/us/551/0877-01; Unicode character offsets [33439:33636] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6dc0b5ffec12ec474152aa4935b052042835b8bd19a739a908c122c1a115df37. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
As a final matter, that a dominant manufacturer or retailer can abuse resale price maintenance for anticompetitive purposes may not be a serious concern unless the relevant entity has market power.
Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. — 551 U.S. 877 (2007) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2007 (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
As a final matter, that a dominant manufacturer or retailer can abuse resale price maintenance for anticompetitive purposes may not be a serious concern unless the relevant entity has market power.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_551.jsonl#/us/551/0877-01; Unicode character offsets [33439:33636] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6dc0b5ffec12ec474152aa4935b052042835b8bd19a739a908c122c1a115df37.Under the Rule of Reason (absent direct proof of actual detrimental effects on price or output under FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447 (1986)), plaintiff must define a relevant product and geographic market and prove defendants possess market power within it.
interpretation
Plaintiff must, therefore, define the market and establish market power.
Levine v. Central Florida Medical Affiliates, Inc. — 864 F. Supp. 1175 (1994) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · 1994 (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
Plaintiff must, therefore, define the market and establish market power.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_864.jsonl#/f-supp/864/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [34369:34441] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c1960d1dc678061d6eacfba6f9a02c11fb0fa2859d08dc7ca865e6700f0fb3.Under the Rule of Reason (absent direct proof of actual detrimental effects on price or output under FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447 (1986)), plaintiff must define a relevant product and geographic market and prove defendants possess market power within it.
interpretation
there appears to be no authority (and indeed none is found in the cases North Jackson cites) to support the notion that substantial market power is a sufficient, rather than a necessary, basis for finding that a given restraint is per se unlawful under Section 1
North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. v. Caremark Rx, Inc. — 385 F. Supp. 2d 740 (2005) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2005 (15usc1: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md))
there appears to be no authority (and indeed none is found in the cases North Jackson cites) to support the notion that substantial market power is a sufficient, rather than a necessary, basis for finding that a given restraint is per se unlawful under Section 1Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_385.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/385/0740-01; Unicode character offsets [29159:29421] (end exclusive); SHA-256 061c34d0b500376f04d011b5ab2e2f1ac60dba2bb321f15089be5be4b7c5e5d9.Under the Rule of Reason (absent direct proof of actual detrimental effects on price or output under FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447 (1986)), plaintiff must define a relevant product and geographic market and prove defendants possess market power within it.