OR · 15usc1:restraint.quick-look
Applied when "an observer with even a rudimentary understanding of economics could conclude that the arrangements in question would have an anticompetitive effect on customers and markets" (California Dental Ass'n v. FTC, 526 U.S. 756, 770 (1999); NCAA v. Board of Regents, 468 U.S. 85 (1984)).
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.All variants
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|
Court interpretations
interpretation
we have applied the quick look doctrine to business activities that are so plainly anticompetitive that courts need undertake only a cursory examination before imposing antitrust liability
/us/547/0001-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2006
we have applied the quick look doctrine to business activities that are so plainly anticompetitive that courts need undertake only a cursory examination before imposing antitrust liabilitySource:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_547.jsonl#/us/547/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [10393:10581] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5084a5ea36bd7dae778624421ca275b1bb30e1f70daa750450037b732cb132a3.Applied when "an observer with even a rudimentary understanding of economics could conclude that the arrangements in question would have an anticompetitive effect on customers and markets" (California Dental Ass'n v. FTC, 526 U.S. 756, 770 (1999); NCAA v. Board of Regents, 468 U.S. 85 (1984)).