| Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published | 
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01-15963 | Flamingo Industries Ltd. v. U.S. Postal Servcies U.S. Postal Service constitutes 'person' under Lanham Act and is not entitled to sovereign immunity from antitrust claims. | Antitrust |  | Feb. 26, 2004 | |
| 02-682 | Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko Complaint alleging violations of Telecommunications Act of 1996 does not state claim under Section 2 of Sherman Act. | Antitrust |  | Jan. 21, 2004 | |
| 01-56447 | Glen Holly Entertainment Inc. v. Tektronix Inc. Company forced out of business by joint venture of two competitors adequately alleged antitrust injury. | Antitrust |  | Oct. 24, 2003 | |
| 01-17451 | International Healthcare Management v. The Hawaii Coalition for Health Consortium to negotiate terms of company's provider agreement does not cause antitrust injury in violation of Sherman Act. | Antitrust |  | Jul. 25, 2003 | |
| 01-56245 | Bourns Inc. v. Raychem Corp. Jury instructions on misappropriation claim are harmless error; beginning business does not have standing to assert antitrust action. | Antitrust |  | Jul. 22, 2003 | |
| 01-35406 | MetroNet Services Corp. v. US West Communications Reseller of telephone services has demonstrated triable issues of fact sufficient to proceed on its antitrust claims against telephone company. | Antitrust |  | Jun. 16, 2003 | |
| 01-35849 | Paladin Associates Inc. v. Montana Power Co. There are no violations of antitrust laws where procompetitive justifications plainly outweigh alleged anticompetitive effects. | Antitrust |  | May 20, 2003 | |
| 01-56199 | Freeman v. San Diego Association of Realtors Real estate multiple listing service that charges fixed price to subscribers violates Sherman Act. | Antitrust |  | Mar. 18, 2003 | |
| 01-4109 | Lantec Inc. v. Novell Inc. Plaintiff didn't produce sufficient evidence to support inference of conspiracy to monopolize. | Antitrust |  | Sep. 22, 2002 | |
| 01-6067 | Telecor Communications, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. Pay phone location owners define market where telephone company's anti-competitive behavior took place. | Antitrust |  | Sep. 16, 2002 | |
| 01-0046 | Bunker's Glass Co. v. Pilkington plc Indirect purchaser may bring action to recover damages resulting from alleged price-fixing by manufacturer. | Antitrust |  | Apr. 2, 2002 | |
| 99-56761 | Lucas Automotive Engineering Inc. v. Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. Relevant market, for purposes of Clayton Act violation, does not require claimant to establish sub-market to proceed with action. | Antitrust |  | Feb. 20, 2002 | |
| 99-17406 | Cable Arizona Corp. v. Coxcom Inc. Apartment owner who grants cable company access to units is not required to provide access to competing cable provider. | Antitrust |  | Nov. 30, 2001 | |
| B136778 | Chavez v. Whirlpool Corp. Manufacturer that demands minimum resale prices does not commit anti-competitive conduct. | Antitrust |  | Oct. 29, 2001 | |
| 00-15101 | Toscano v. Professional Golfers' Assoc. No direct evidence supported plaintiff's allegations that Professional Golfers' Association violated Sherman Antitrust Act by conspiring to restrain trade. | Antitrust |  | Oct. 4, 2001 | |
| 00-55046 | Tanaka v. University of Southern California Collegiate soccer player's antitrust challenge to intercollegiate athletic association rule fails because of failure to identify relevant market. | Antitrust |  | Jul. 25, 2001 | |
| S086738 | Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Company Prima facie case of antitrust violation required showing that petroleum companies acted collusively and not independently. | Antitrust |  | Jul. 12, 2001 | |
| 00-6047 | Trigen-Oklahoma City Energy Corp. v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. State action doctrine protects company's state regulated electricity sales from federal antitrust liability. | Antitrust |  | May 16, 2001 | |
| 98-4157 | Huntsman Chemical Corp. v. Holland Plastics Co. Order | Antitrust |  | May 15, 2001 | |
| 99-35204 | Snake River Valley Electric Assoc. v. Pacificorp Idaho's Electronic Supplier Stabilization Act is not state-sponsored restraint of competition that is immune from antitrust scrutiny because it fails two-prong test. | Antitrust |  | Apr. 19, 2001 | |
| 96-15293 | Image Technical Services Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co. Monopolist's goal to exclude others from copyrighted work raises rebuttable justification presumption for refusal to deal. | Antitrust |  | Apr. 18, 2001 | |
| 98-17424 | County of Toulumne v. Sonora Community Hospital Hospital's requirement of only granting Board-certified obstetricians privileges to perform Cesarean-section deliveries isn't violation of antitrust laws. | Antitrust |  | Mar. 14, 2001 | |
| 99-3353 | Law v. National Collegiate Athletic Association Order | Antitrust |  | Mar. 6, 2001 | |
| 00-3135 | Orr v. BHR Inc. Order | Antitrust |  | Feb. 27, 2001 | |
| S066735 | Cel-Tech Communications Inc v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. In order to violate Unfair Practices Act, company must act with the purpose of injuring competitor. | Antitrust |  | Feb. 14, 2001 | |
| 99-35204 | Snake River Valley Electric Assn. v. Pacificorp Idaho's Electronic Supplier Stabilization Act is not state-sponsored restraint of competition that is immune from antitrust scrutiny because it fails two-prong test. | Antitrust |  | Jan. 3, 2001 | |
| 99-04692 | Garabet v. Autonomous Technologies Corp. Plaintiffs who can establish only speculative damages as result of merger do not have standing to bring antitrust claim. | Antitrust |  | Oct. 18, 2000 | |
| B094578 | Cel-Tech Communications Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. Cellular telephone provider's practice of selling phones below cost can constitute unfair competition. | Antitrust |  | Sep. 21, 2000 | |
| 99SC137 | Ryals v. St. Mary-Corwin Regional Medical Center Physician who accuses hospital of anti-competitive conduct is not required to bring claim before professional peer review committee. | Antitrust |  | Sep. 20, 2000 | |
| 99-391 | Free v. Abbott Laboratories Louisiana antitrust law does not grant standing to indirect purchasers of consumer products. | Antitrust |  | Jul. 6, 2000 | 
 

 
