American Motor Inns, Inc. v. Holiday Inns, Inc., International Association of Holiday Inns, Intervenor-Defendant

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that foreclosure of 14.7% “may well offend the limitations which the Clayton Act places on exclusive contracts” when considered in combination with other market factors
• denying that “the availability of an alternative means of achieving the asserted business purpose renders the existing arrangement unlawful if that alternative would be less restrictive of competition no matter to how small a degree”
• denying that “the availability of an alternative means of achieving the asserted business purpose renders the existing arrangement unlawful if that alternative would be less restrictive of competition no matter to how small a degree”
• finding foreclosure of 14% “may well offend limitations which the Clayton Act places on exclusive contracts”
• explaining in a footnote that ”[i]n an antitrust action, of course, the plaintiff ordinarily need not join all the alleged co-conspirators as defendants, as long as the plaintiff does not seek to enforce the judgment against those not made defendants”
• \AMI will be bound by its own analysis in open court of the issues to be litigated.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).