Columbia River People's Utility District v. Portland General Electric Company

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that the same permissible constraints will exist whether the monopoly is held by one party or another
• holding that determining which party would be a state- approved monopolist for an electrical plant had no antitrust significance because the monopoly would exist either way
• holding that there cannot be a § 1 violation when one monopolist utility seeks to replace another in a “monopoly market” because this only affects competitors, not competition; “consumers will still buy electricity and a utility will still produce it”
• holding that there cannot be a § 1 violation when one monopolist utility seeks to replace another in a “monopoly market” because this only affects competitors, not competition; “consumers will still buy electricity and a utility will still produce it”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).