OR · 15usc1:x-ancillary-restraints
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.
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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _whole accepted; 2 observed cases | 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. | 2 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 1; excluded context 1 | 2 | Med. Ctr. At Elizabeth Place, LLC v. Atrium Health Sys. — 922 F.3d 713 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · law (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted 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) · applied/merits · counted 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) · applied/alternative · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Med. Ctr. At Elizabeth Place, LLC v. Atrium Health Sys. — 922 F.3d 713 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · law (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Ancillary restraints doctrine (restraint subordinate and collateral to a legitimate productive integration) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; party: Medical Center at Elizabeth Place (MCEP; physician-owned hospital, plaintiff) v. the Premier Health Partners hospitals ("Hospital Defendants", a joint operating company and its four member hospitals); theory: per se group boycott by the Hospital Defendants (the "hub" claim): payer panel limitations, physician non-competes and lease terminations, the "Dear Physician" letter; subject: party=Medical Center at Elizabeth Place (MCEP; physician-owned hospital, plaintiff) v. the Premier Health Partners hospitals ("Hospital Defendants", a joint operating company and its four member hospitals); theory=per se group boycott by the Hospital Defendants (the "hub" claim): payer panel limitations, physician non-competes and lease terminations, the "Dear Physician" letter The court rejects both the "core activity" label for the panel limitations (Dagher) and the Eleventh Circuit's requirement that an ancillary restraint be necessary; the defendant need not prove procompetitive effect, a plausible relationship to the venture suffices. | joint venture's payer panel limitations and physician lease/non-compete terms plausibly related to the venture's efficiency goals | We follow the majority of Circuits and hold that a joint venture's restraint is ancillary and therefore inappropriate for per se categorization when, viewed at the time it was adopted, the restraint "may contribute to the success of a cooperative venture."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_922.jsonl#/f3d/922/0713-01; Unicode character offsets [26941:27197] (end exclusive); SHA-256 52b18aaeeab3bbac5a98f6f0309c8611637b1f238b1c1a5bcb726b6c3994b6b0.In support of this claim, MCEP points to evidence showing that Premier's contract with insurer Aetna had a volume-based discount that automatically lowered Premier's rates when billing volume increased past certain benchmarks.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_922.jsonl#/f3d/922/0713-01; Unicode character offsets [34548:34774] (end exclusive); SHA-256 52b18aaeeab3bbac5a98f6f0309c8611637b1f238b1c1a5bcb726b6c3994b6b0.Hospital Defendants continue to operate as a joint venture today even though the panel limitation clauses have been removed from their contracts with payers.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_922.jsonl#/f3d/922/0713-01; Unicode character offsets [22314:22471] (end exclusive); SHA-256 52b18aaeeab3bbac5a98f6f0309c8611637b1f238b1c1a5bcb726b6c3994b6b0.Hospital Defendants had a plausible concern that, without these contracts, physicians who invested in MCEP could rent office space at a Premier-associated hospital, free ride on the reputation and facilities of that hospital, and then refer patients out to MCEP.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_922.jsonl#/f3d/922/0713-01; Unicode character offsets [38897:39159] (end exclusive); SHA-256 52b18aaeeab3bbac5a98f6f0309c8611637b1f238b1c1a5bcb726b6c3994b6b0.It is plausible that panel limitations, by lowering the cost of Hospital Defendants' services, contribute to the efficiency-enhancing purposes of the joint venture, specifically improving "cost effectiveness and efficiencies in the delivery of health care services."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_922.jsonl#/f3d/922/0713-01; Unicode character offsets [35741:36007] (end exclusive); SHA-256 52b18aaeeab3bbac5a98f6f0309c8611637b1f238b1c1a5bcb726b6c3994b6b0.Preventing such a misalignment of incentives is plausibly related to Hospital Defendants' goal of "integrat[ing] physicians and other health care providers with the JOC Network."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_922.jsonl#/f3d/922/0713-01; Unicode character offsets [39160:39338] (end exclusive); SHA-256 52b18aaeeab3bbac5a98f6f0309c8611637b1f238b1c1a5bcb726b6c3994b6b0. |
| 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
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.
interpretation
Naked restraints are unlikely to have any redeeming value and so are usually accorded per se treatment. But ancillary restraints that “may contribute to the success of a cooperative venture that promises greater productivity and output” (id. at 189) demand the more thorough analysis provided by the rule of reason.
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))
Naked restraints are unlikely to have any redeeming value and so are usually accorded per se treatment. But ancillary restraints that “may contribute to the success of a cooperative venture that promises greater productivity and output” (id. at 189) demand the more thorough analysis provided by the rule of reason.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_385.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/385/0740-01; Unicode character offsets [16295:16610] (end exclusive); SHA-256 061c34d0b500376f04d011b5ab2e2f1ac60dba2bb321f15089be5be4b7c5e5d9.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.