A · Element outline
Labels preserve the recorded AND / OR / EXCEPTION / DEFENSE structure.
Claim structure
Expression key: & = AND; | = OR; ! = exclusion / negation. Parentheses preserve grouping.
15usc1:civil
agreement & restraint & (restraint.per-se | restraint.quick-look | restraint.rule-of-reason) & commerce & injury & standing & !state-action-immunity & !statute-of-limitations & !x-law-of-the-casePrivate civil antitrust action via Clayton Act §§ 4 and 16 (15 U.S.C. §§ 15, 26): requires concerted action between separate economic decisionmakers, an unreasonable restraint of trade evaluated under the applicable mode of analysis (per se, quick look, or rule of reason), interstate/foreign commerce nexus, antitrust injury, and antitrust standing.
15usc1:criminal
agreement & (restraint.per-se | restraint.rule-of-reason) & commerce & intent & !statute-of-limitationsCriminal felony prosecution under the second sentence of 15 U.S.C. § 1: per-se and non-per-se routes remain available. United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422 (1978), requires proof of the appropriate criminal intent for a non-per-se restraint; knowing joinder can suffice for a per-se restraint.
Constraints
Whether an arrangement joins separate economic decisionmakers capable of concerted action (Copperweld / American Needle) is a threshold inquiry separate from whether cooperation is necessary or procompetitive under the Rule of Reason.
In criminal per se prosecutions, intent to restrain trade is satisfied by knowing participation in the conspiracy without separate proof of intent to produce anticompetitive effects.
Law modes, protocols and effects
law
Law kind: substantive
mode · mode:restraint
Element: restraint
Alternatives: per-se, quick-look, rule-of-reason
Default: rule-of-reason
A plaintiff who disclaims every other mode loses on the merits when its mode is rejected (Texaco v. Dagher); otherwise rejection of per se treatment only moves the case to another mode.
Statute text with element anchors
Overlapping highlights link to the first element; the anchor key links every associated element. All offsets refer to unchanged source text.
§1. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. (July 2, 1890, ch. 647, §1, 26 Stat. 209 ; Aug. 17, 1937, ch. 690, title VIII, 50 Stat. 693 ; July 7, 1955, ch. 281, 69 Stat. 282 ; Pub. L. 93–528, §3, Dec. 21, 1974, 88 Stat. 1708 ; Pub. L. 94–145, §2, Dec. 12, 1975, 89 Stat. 801 ; Pub. L. 101–588, §4(a), Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 2880 ; Pub. L. 108–237, title II, §215(a), June 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 668 .)All element anchor links
- Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers — offsets [57:133]
- Conditional Monsanto / Matsushita inference: evidence tending to exclude the possibility of independent action when circumstantial proof is used — offsets [57:133]
- Parker v. Brown state-action immunity (Midcal two-prong test: clearly articulated state policy + active state supervision) — offsets [57:133]
- Horizontal cartel / hub-and-spoke conspiracy operating through vertical or dual-distribution arrangements — offsets [57:133]
- Unreasonable restraint of trade (Standard Oil Co. v. United States) — offsets [135:168]
- Relevant product/geographic market definition and market power under the Rule of Reason — offsets [135:168]
- Per se illegality for naked restraints manifestly anticompetitive and lacking redeeming virtue — offsets [135:168]
- Quick-look / truncated Rule of Reason analysis for restraints with obvious anticompetitive effects — offsets [135:168]
- Presumptive Rule of Reason burden-shifting analysis (antitrust market + anticompetitive effect vs procompetitive justification) — offsets [135:168]
- Ancillary restraints doctrine (restraint subordinate and collateral to a legitimate productive integration) — offsets [135:168]
- Restraint of trade or commerce among the several States or with foreign nations — offsets [169:218]
- Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) — offsets [220:245]
- Quantum / reasonable estimate of antitrust damages once fact of damage is established — offsets [220:245]
- Antitrust standing / efficient enforcer test (Associated General Contractors; Illinois Brick) — offsets [220:245]
- Law-of-the-case doctrine in consolidated/MDL antitrust proceedings — offsets [220:245]
- Statute of limitations (4-year civil under 15 U.S.C. § 15b; 5-year criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 3282) — offsets [247:360]
- Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers — offsets [270:330]
- Criminal mens rea: knowing participation in the conspiracy or intent to restrain trade — offsets [361:395]
Element outline
- AND Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers
Encompasses two distinct sub-inquiries: (1) capacity/plurality of actors (Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (1984); American Needle), and (2) existence/proof of an actual agreement rather than unilateral conduct (United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919)) or mere conscious parallelism (Twombly; Matsushita). The Copperweld / American Needle "single entity" argument is this element, route capacity-to-conspire, not a separate defense (it was modelled twice until taxonomy v1.2: also as `defense x-single-entity`). Mirror image of `agreement` plurality: a parent corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary (Copperweld, 467 U.S. 752 (1984)), or a corporation and its officers/employees/agents acting on its behalf (Harvey v. Fearless Farris), are a single economic actor incapable of conspiring under § 1; however, legally single joint ventures controlled by separate potential competitors acting on separate economic interests are not immune (American Needle).
25 merits instance blocks; 16 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) Unclassified route
provisional; 3 observed casesno definition yet 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 30 Used only in non-merits blocks (3).
Excluded context examples:Maui Jim, Inc. v. Smartbuy Guru Enters. — 386 F. Supp. 3d 926 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2019 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recordedLevine 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/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recordedTexaco Inc. v. Dagher — 547 U.S. 1 (2006) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recorded_whole
accepted; 2 observed casesThe 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 02 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)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: municipal lease to the higher lump-sum bidder; no proof of a conspiracy to restrain tradeMucky Duck v. Directv, LLC (In re Nat'l Football League's Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litig.) — 933 F.3d 1136 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · conceded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: sports league: written agreement among separately owned teams to pool telecast rights in the league, plus the league's exclusive distribution contractcapacity-to-conspire
provisional; 3 observed casesWhether the alleged conspirators are separate economic decision-makers legally capable of conspiring with one another. 5
Satisfied 2; not satisfied 3; excluded context 22 Harvey v. Fearless Farris Wholesale, Inc. — 589 F.2d 451 (1979) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979 — not · law (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: separate-incorporation-aloneHarvey v. Fearless Farris Wholesale, Inc. — 589 F.2d 451 (1979) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979 — not · law (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: agent-implementing-principals-decisionHarvey v. Fearless Farris Wholesale, Inc. — 589 F.2d 451 (1979) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979 — not · no-evidence (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: commonly-owned-corporations-single-decisionmakerAmerican Needle, Inc. v. National Football League — 560 U.S. 183 (2010) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2010 — satisfied · law (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: jointly-owned-licensing-corporation-as-instrumentalityAmerican Needle, Inc. v. National Football League — 560 U.S. 183 (2010) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2010 — satisfied · law (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Excluded context examples:
Pattern: separately-owned-teams-licensing-ip-collectivelyLevine v. Central Florida Medical Affiliates, Inc. — 864 F. Supp. 1175 (1994) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · 1994 — satisfied · assumed (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/alternative · not counted
Pattern: hospital-and-medical-staff/sham-peer-reviewHarvey v. Fearless Farris Wholesale, Inc. — 589 F.2d 451 (1979) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979 — not · law (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/alternative · not counted
Pattern: officers-acting-for-the-same-corporationsdirect-evidence
provisional; 2 observed casesWhether direct evidence of the agreement itself establishes concerted action among competitors. 2
Satisfied 2; not satisfied 0; excluded context 02 United States v. Cooperative Theatres of Ohio, Inc. — 845 F.2d 1367 (1988) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1988 — satisfied · proved (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: immunized-coconspirator-testimony-of-meetingTunica Web Advertising v. Tunica Casino Operators Ass'n — 496 F.3d 403 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007 — satisfied · triable (15usc1: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: participant-admission-of-gentlemens-agreement-to-boycotthub-and-spoke
provisional; 2 observed casesWhether horizontal competitors agreed with one another through a common vertical partner or agent. 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 11 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 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Excluded context examples:
Pattern: buyers-knowingly-sharing-common-purchasing-agentMed. Ctr. At Elizabeth Place, LLC v. Atrium Health Sys. — 922 F.3d 713 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — not · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/procedural · not counted
Pattern: rim agreements among payers and among physicians raised only in summary-judgment opposition; not in the complaint, and leave to amend deniedinference-from-conduct
provisional; 5 observed casesWhether an agreement among competitors can be inferred from parallel or collective conduct, with or without plus factors (Twombly, Matsushita). 6
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 5; excluded context 05 In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. — 351 F. Supp. 3d 698 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: group-boycott-conspiracy/partial-dealing-in-context-of-well-pled-parallel-boycottFreedom Watch, Inc. v. Google, Inc. — 368 F. Supp. 3d 30 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2019 — not · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: parallel loss of audience on several platforms; no communication alleged; revenue loss offered as act against self-interestTunica Web Advertising v. Tunica Casino Operators Ass'n — 496 F.3d 403 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007 — not · law (15usc1: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: concerted-action/joint-rejection-of-joint-offerjoinder-and-scope
provisional; 2 observed casesWhether a particular defendant joined an otherwise alleged conspiracy, or whether the conspiracy extends to a further target or period. 2
Satisfied 2; not satisfied 0; excluded context 02 In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. — 351 F. Supp. 3d 698 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: joinder-in-conspiracy/scope-extends-to-additional-target-thin-individual-allegationsIQ Dental Supply, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc. — 924 F.3d 57 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: pressure on the plaintiff's own suppliers pleaded as one prong of a wider concerted boycott of an online portalstate-compelled-conduct
provisional; provisional (1 case)Whether conduct imposed or compelled unilaterally by a statute is an agreement at all (Fisher v. Berkeley; hybrid restraints). 2
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 2; excluded context 01 Connecticut Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC v. Seagull — 916 F.3d 160 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — not · law (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: state ban on wholesaler price discrimination and volume discounts; restraint imposed unilaterally by the StateConnecticut Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC v. Seagull — 916 F.3d 160 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — not · law (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: state post-and-hold liquor pricing statute; wholesalers' parallel posted prices arise from individual compliance, not agreementvertical-agreement
provisional; 4 observed casesWhether a firm and its dealers or customers at another level of distribution agreed, as opposed to a unilateral policy met with acquiescence (Colgate, Monsanto). 5
Satisfied 4; not satisfied 1; excluded context 13 City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc. — 360 F. Supp. 3d 730 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: manufacturer and its sole distributor: exclusive-distribution program followed by an unresisted 1,310% price increaseFord Motor Co. v. Webster's Auto Sales, Inc. — 361 F.2d 874 (1966) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1966 — satisfied · proved (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: resale-restriction-instigated-by-complaining-dealerFord Motor Co. v. Webster's Auto Sales, Inc. — 361 F.2d 874 (1966) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1966 — satisfied · proved (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: announcement-plus-dealer-complianceFord Motor Co. v. Webster's Auto Sales, Inc. — 361 F.2d 874 (1966) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1966 — not · no-evidence (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: parallel-conduct/dealer-compliance-with-vertical-restrictionLeegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. — 551 U.S. 877 (2007) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2007 — satisfied · conceded (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Excluded context examples:
Pattern: manufacturer-retailer-minimum-resale-price-pledgeSystemcare, 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
Pattern: coerced-acquiescence-in-tie- OR Conditional Monsanto / Matsushita inference: evidence tending to exclude the possibility of independent action when circumstantial proof is used
This is a conditional evidentiary inference used when the alleged agreement is proved circumstantially; it is not a universal additional element where direct agreement evidence is offered. Under Monsanto (465 U.S. at 764) and Matsushita (475 U.S. at 588), circumstantial evidence must tend to exclude independent action.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) _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 10 Used only in non-merits blocks (1).
Excluded context examples: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
Pattern: express-tie/buyer-acquiescence-excludes-independent-action
- OR Conditional Monsanto / Matsushita inference: evidence tending to exclude the possibility of independent action when circumstantial proof is used
- AND Unreasonable restraint of trade (Standard Oil Co. v. United States)
Because every commercial contract restrains trade in some literal sense, § 1 outlaws only *unreasonable* restraints of trade (Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911); State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 10 (1997)), evaluated via one of three analytical modes (`restraint.per-se`, `restraint.quick-look`, or `restraint.rule-of-reason`).
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) Unclassified route
provisional; 5 observed casesno definition yet 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 50 Used only in non-merits blocks (5).
Excluded context examples:In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. — 351 F. Supp. 3d 698 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recordedHarvey v. Fearless Farris Wholesale, Inc. — 589 F.2d 451 (1979) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recordedSystemcare, 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
Pattern: not recorded_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. 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc. — 360 F. Supp. 3d 730 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: exclusive distribution plus acquisition and shelving of the only rival product; mode of analysis expressly deferred to after discovery- OR Per se illegality for naked restraints manifestly anticompetitive and lacking redeeming virtue
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)).
7 merits instance blocks; 6 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) _procedural
accepted; provisional (1 case)The element is only the occasion for a procedural ruling. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 Used only in non-merits blocks (1).
Excluded context examples:United States v. Kemp & Assocs., Inc. — 907 F.3d 1264 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2018 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/procedural · not counted
Pattern: government appeal of a pretrial order selecting the rule of reason for a charged customer allocation: no jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3731, mandamus deniedboycott-or-exclusion
provisional; 3 observed casesWhether a concerted refusal to deal or agreement to exclude a class of traders is per se unlawful. 2
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 1; excluded context 12 Jain Irrigation, Inc. v. Netafim Irrigation, Inc. — 386 F. Supp. 3d 1308 (2019) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · 2019 — not · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: single conspiracy mixing manufacturer-level and manufacturer-distributor refusals to deal, pleaded only as per seFord Motor Co. v. Webster's Auto Sales, Inc. — 361 F.2d 874 (1966) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1966 — satisfied · law (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Excluded context examples:
Pattern: per-se/vertical-agreements-to-exclude-class-of-resellersTunica 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 · basis not recorded (15usc1: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) · rule-announced/merits · not counted
Pattern: group-boycott/horizontal-buyers-boycotting-non-competitor-suppliercooperative-or-novel-arrangement
provisional; 4 observed casesWhether a restraint arising inside a cooperative, joint-purchasing, or otherwise novel integrated arrangement is eligible for per se treatment at all (BMI, NCAA, Northwest Wholesale). 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 31 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 — not · law (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Excluded context examples:
Pattern: hospital joint venture's payer panel limitations, physician non-competes and opposition letter; plausibly procompetitive, so no per se categoryNorth 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
Pattern: ancillary-restraint/cooperative-buying-through-common-agentLevine 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) · rule-announced/alternative · not counted
Pattern: per-se-rejected/closed-panel-ppo-effect-not-obviousAmerican Needle, Inc. v. National Football League — 560 U.S. 183 (2010) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2010 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted
Pattern: per-se-rejected/cooperation-essential-to-producthorizontal-allocation
provisional; provisional (1 case)Whether competitors divided customers or territories. 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 United States v. Cooperative Theatres of Ohio, Inc. — 845 F.2d 1367 (1988) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1988 — satisfied · law (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: horizontal-customer-allocation/no-solicitation-of-existing-accountshorizontal-price-fixing
provisional; 2 observed casesWhether a common price set by or among competitors is per se unlawful price fixing. 2
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 2; excluded context 11 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
Pattern: per-se-rejected/single-price-set-by-lawful-integrated-joint-ventureTexaco 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
Excluded context examples:
Pattern: quick-look-rejected/single-price-set-by-lawful-integrated-joint-ventureNorth 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
Pattern: competing-intermediaries-fixing-reimbursement-ratesvertical-price-restraint
provisional; 2 observed casesWhether a supplier-imposed resale price is per se unlawful or judged under the rule of reason (Dr. Miles, Leegin). 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 11 Connecticut Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC v. Seagull — 916 F.3d 160 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — not · law (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Excluded context examples:
Pattern: state-mandated minimum retail price keyed to the wholesaler's posted bottle price; vertical, so rule of reason after Leegin and not facially preemptedLeegin 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
Pattern: per-se-rejected/vertical-minimum-resale-price-maintenance - OR Quick-look / truncated Rule of Reason analysis for restraints with obvious anticompetitive effects
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)).
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No routes recorded for this element.
- OR Presumptive Rule of Reason burden-shifting analysis (antitrust market + anticompetitive effect vs procompetitive justification)
Default standard under § 1 (Ohio v. American Express Co., 585 U.S. 529 (2018); Leegin): three-step burden-shifting framework: (1) plaintiff proves substantial anticompetitive effect in a defined relevant product and geographic market (directly via reduced output/supercompetitive prices, or indirectly via market power + anticompetitive structure); (2) defendant proffers nonpretextual procompetitive justifications; (3) plaintiff shows the efficiencies could be reasonably achieved through less anticompetitive means.
4 merits instance blocks; 4 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) Unclassified route
provisional; 7 observed casesno definition yet 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 70 Used only in non-merits blocks (7).
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
Pattern: not recordedJain Irrigation, Inc. v. Netafim Irrigation, Inc. — 386 F. Supp. 3d 1308 (2019) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · 2019 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recordedFord Motor Co. v. Webster's Auto Sales, Inc. — 361 F.2d 874 (1966) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1966 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recorded_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 10 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
Pattern: rule-of-reason/vertical-minimum-resale-price-maintenanceanticompetitive-effect
provisional; 3 observed casesWhether the plaintiff carried the initial burden of showing harm to competition in a relevant market. 2
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 1; excluded context 12 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)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: losing bidder for a municipal billboard lease shows harm to itself, not to competitionMucky Duck v. Directv, LLC (In re Nat'l Football League's Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litig.) — 933 F.3d 1136 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Excluded context examples:
Pattern: league-wide pooling of telecast rights limiting output to one telecast per game; naked output restriction as in NCAA v. Board of Regents, so no market definition neededLevine v. Central Florida Medical Affiliates, Inc. — 864 F. Supp. 1175 (1994) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · 1994 — not · no-evidence (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/alternative · not counted
Pattern: single-competitor-excluded-no-market-proofmarket-definition
provisional; 2 observed casesWhether the plaintiff pleaded or proved a plausible relevant market. 2
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 2; excluded context 02 Premier Comp Solutions LLC v. UPMC — 377 F. Supp. 3d 506 (2019) · United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania · 2019 — not · no-evidence (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: expert-asserted "cluster" product market and regional geographic market with no quantitative or practical-indicia supportMaui Jim, Inc. v. Smartbuy Guru Enters. — 386 F. Supp. 3d 926 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2019 — not · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: single-brand market (one manufacturer's sunglasses) pleaded by a retailer that itself sells 180 competing brands - AND Relevant product/geographic market definition and market power under the Rule of Reason
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.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) Unclassified route
provisional; 4 observed casesno definition yet 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 40 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
Pattern: not recordedLevine 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
Pattern: not recordedSystemcare, 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
Pattern: not recorded_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 10 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
Pattern: rule-of-reason-factor/market-power-of-manufacturer-or-retailer
- OR Per se illegality for naked restraints manifestly anticompetitive and lacking redeeming virtue
- AND Restraint of trade or commerce among the several States or with foreign nations
Under Summit Health, Ltd. v. Pinhas (500 U.S. 322 (1991)) and McLain v. Real Estate Board of New Orleans (444 U.S. 232 (1980)), satisfied if the restraint is either "in" interstate commerce or concerns general business activities that have a "not insubstantial effect" on interstate commerce (and for foreign commerce, subject to the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6a).
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) Unclassified route
provisional; 12 observed casesno definition yet 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 120 Used only in non-merits blocks (12).
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
Pattern: not recordedIn re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. — 351 F. Supp. 3d 698 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recordedLevine 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/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recorded - AND Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat)
Under Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc. (429 U.S. 477, 489 (1977)), plaintiff must prove "antitrust injury, which is to say injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants' acts unlawful" — harm to competition, not merely harm to an individual competitor.
7 merits instance blocks; 6 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) Unclassified route
provisional; 9 observed casesno definition yet 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 90 Used only in non-merits blocks (9).
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
Pattern: not recordedIn re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. — 351 F. Supp. 3d 698 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recordedHarvey v. Fearless Farris Wholesale, Inc. — 589 F.2d 451 (1979) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recordedantitrust-injury
provisional; 5 observed casesWhether the plaintiff's loss is of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and flows from what makes the conduct unlawful (Brunswick). 6
Satisfied 3; not satisfied 3; excluded context 05 City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc. — 360 F. Supp. 3d 730 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: payor paying supracompetitive drug prices attributed to restricted distribution and a shelved rival productMaui Jim, Inc. v. Smartbuy Guru Enters. — 386 F. Supp. 3d 926 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2019 — not · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: self-described direct competitor complaining of the rival's artificially high resale prices and of losing its supplyLevine v. Central Florida Medical Affiliates, Inc. — 864 F. Supp. 1175 (1994) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · 1994 — not · no-evidence (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: suspended-physician-still-practicing-elsewhereLevine v. Central Florida Medical Affiliates, Inc. — 864 F. Supp. 1175 (1994) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · 1994 — not · no-evidence (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: plaintiff-seeks-share-of-supracompetitive-profitsfact-of-damage
provisional; provisional (1 case)Whether the plaintiff proved that it was in fact harmed by the violation. 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 Ford Motor Co. v. Webster's Auto Sales, Inc. — 361 F.2d 874 (1966) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1966 — satisfied · proved (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: lost-supply-from-principal-supplier-joining-boycott- AND Quantum / reasonable estimate of antitrust damages once fact of damage is established
Courts distinguish between the strict burden of proving the *fact* of antitrust injury/damage and the more relaxed standard for estimating the *amount* of damages (Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co., 282 U.S. 555 (1931); Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, 327 U.S. 251 (1946)).
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) _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. 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 Ford Motor Co. v. Webster's Auto Sales, Inc. — 361 F.2d 874 (1966) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1966 — satisfied · proved (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: amount-of-damages/lost-profits-estimated-from-past-earnings
- AND Quantum / reasonable estimate of antitrust damages once fact of damage is established
- AND Antitrust standing / efficient enforcer test (Associated General Contractors; Illinois Brick)
Under Associated General Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Carpenters (459 U.S. 519 (1983)), courts balance: (1) causal connection and antitrust injury, (2) directness of the injury (and the Illinois Brick bar on indirect-purchaser damages suits), (3) speculative nature of damages, (4) risk of duplicative recovery or complex apportionment, and (5) existence of more direct victims ("efficient enforcer" factors).
6 merits instance blocks; 4 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) Unclassified route
provisional; 5 observed casesno definition yet 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 50 Used only in non-merits blocks (5).
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
Pattern: not recordedIn re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. — 351 F. Supp. 3d 698 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recordedFord Motor Co. v. Webster's Auto Sales, Inc. — 361 F.2d 874 (1966) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1966 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recordedefficient-enforcer
provisional; 3 observed casesWhether the plaintiff is a proper party under the Associated General Contractors factors (directness, speculativeness, more direct victims). 3
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 2; excluded context 12 Levine v. Central Florida Medical Affiliates, Inc. — 864 F. Supp. 1175 (1994) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · 1994 — not · no-evidence (15usc1: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: speculative-damages-from-hypothetical-open-marketIQ Dental Supply, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc. — 924 F.3d 57 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: competitor that was itself the target of the boycott: suppliers pressured to cut it offIQ Dental Supply, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc. — 924 F.3d 57 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — not · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Excluded context examples:
Pattern: distributor harmed derivatively by a boycott aimed at the online portal it sold through; the portal itself has already suedTunica Web Advertising v. Tunica Casino Operators Ass'n — 496 F.3d 403 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007 — not · law (15usc1: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) · applied/lower-court · not counted
Pattern: improper-plaintiff/shareholder-of-injured-corporationindirect-purchaser-rule
provisional; 2 observed casesWhether the plaintiff bought directly from the alleged violator and so may claim damages (Illinois Brick). 3
Satisfied 2; not satisfied 1; excluded context 02 City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc. — 360 F. Supp. 3d 730 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2019 — not · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: payor that paid a non-conspirator PBM (CVS Caremark), not the alleged co-conspirator distributorCity of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc. — 360 F. Supp. 3d 730 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: payor that paid the conspiring exclusive distributor sues distributor and manufacturer: co-conspirator exception to Illinois BrickMucky Duck v. Directv, LLC (In re Nat'l Football League's Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litig.) — 933 F.3d 1136 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: direct purchasers from a distributor alleged to be a co-conspirator of the upstream rights holders in an output restriction - DEFENSE Parker v. Brown state-action immunity (Midcal two-prong test: clearly articulated state policy + active state supervision)
Under Parker v. Brown (317 U.S. 341 (1943)) and California Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc. (445 U.S. 97 (1980)), state-action immunity shields non-sovereign/private actors only when (1) the challenged restraint is clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy, and (2) the policy is actively supervised by the State itself (and hybrid state-mandated pricing rules that compel private per se conduct without active supervision are preempted, 324 Liquor / Schwegmann / Connecticut Fine Wine).
2 merits instance blocks; 2 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) _whole
accepted; 2 observed casesThe 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 02 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 · law (15usc1: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: private-parties/trade-association-members-claiming-parker-lgaa-noerrParamount 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)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: home-rule municipality regulating billboards and leasing its own land; private lessee shares the municipality's immunity - DEFENSE Statute of limitations (4-year civil under 15 U.S.C. § 15b; 5-year criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 3282)
Accrues when a defendant commits an overt act that injures the plaintiff's business (Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 338 (1971)), subject to continuing-violation and fraudulent-concealment doctrines; criminal conspiracies run from the last overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy (United States v. Kissel; United States v. Kemp & Assocs.).
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) accrual
provisional; provisional (1 case)When the limitations period starts to run, including overt acts of a continuing conspiracy. 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 United States v. Kemp & Assocs., Inc. — 907 F.3d 1264 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2018 — not · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: allocation agreement said to have ended years earlier; fee-sharing payments on allocated estates continued into the five-year windowtolling
provisional; provisional (1 case)Whether the limitations period is tolled. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 Used only in non-merits blocks (1).
Excluded context examples:In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. — 351 F. Supp. 3d 698 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/procedural · not counted
Pattern: fraudulent-concealment-tolling/deferred-to-discovery - DEFENSE Law-of-the-case doctrine in consolidated/MDL antitrust proceedings
Procedural defense invoked where prior rulings in a multidistrict litigation address overlapping conspiracy allegations.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) _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 10 Used only in non-merits blocks (1).
Excluded context examples:In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. — 351 F. Supp. 3d 698 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 — not · law (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/procedural · not counted
Pattern: offensive-by-plaintiff/separate-mdl-action-must-state-own-claim - AND Criminal mens rea: knowing participation in the conspiracy or intent to restrain trade
In civil cases, unlawful intent or anticompetitive effect suffices (United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 436 n.13 (1978)). In non-per-se criminal prosecutions (Gypsum), the government must prove either knowledge that the conduct would produce anticompetitive effects or purpose to produce them; in per se criminal prosecutions, knowing joinder in the price-fixing/allocation agreement suffices.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) _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 10 Used only in non-merits blocks (1).
Excluded context examples:United States v. Cooperative Theatres of Ohio, Inc. — 845 F.2d 1367 (1988) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1988 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted
Pattern: knowing-joinder/per-se-no-proof-of-anticipated-effects - OR Ancillary restraints doctrine (restraint subordinate and collateral to a legitimate productive integration)
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.
2 merits instance blocks; 2 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) _whole
accepted; 2 observed casesThe 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 12 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
Pattern: joint venture's payer panel limitations and physician lease/non-compete terms plausibly related to the venture's efficiency goalsTexaco 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
Excluded context examples:
Pattern: doctrine-inapplicable/core-activity-of-ventureTexaco 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
Pattern: ancillary-restraint/pricing-of-ventures-own-products - OR Horizontal cartel / hub-and-spoke conspiracy operating through vertical or dual-distribution arrangements
Even after Leegin placed vertical resale price maintenance under the Rule of Reason, a horizontal cartel among competing retailers or manufacturers Policed via vertical agreements remains per se unlawful.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) _procedural
accepted; provisional (1 case)The element is only the occasion for a procedural ruling. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 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) · background/procedural · not counted
Pattern: not-preserved/manufacturer-owner-also-retailer