Bridges v. Black

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act requires “the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market”
• holding that a claim under § 2 of the Sherman Act requires “the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market” (emphasis added)
• holding that a claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act requires “the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market”
• concluding that statutorily imposed duties to cooperate with competitors did ʺnot automatically lead to the conclusion that [the duties] can be enforced by means of an antitrust claimʺ
• noting that the 3 opportunity to gain market power “induces risk taking that produces innovation 4 and economic growth”
• explaining that refusals to deal with rivals violate the Sherman Act only in rare circumstances

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).