American Family Life Assurance Co. Of Columbus v. Blue Cross of Florida, Inc., and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• monopolization charge based on Blue Cross' \coordination of benefits\ provision failed because the restraint of trade was not unreasonable, so there was no antitrust violation at all
• monopolization charge based on Blue Cross’ “coordination of benefits” provision failed because the restraint of trade was not unreasonable, so there was no antitrust violation at all
• “[A] judgment which is correct in ultimate effect will not be disturbed on appeal even if the lower court relied on the wrong ground or gave an untenable reason for its decision[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).