Doctor's Hospital of Jefferson, Inc. v. Southeast Medical Alliance, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that alleged injury to a competitor alone was insufficient to establish harm to competition
• commenting that \standing should not become the tail wagging the dog in `classic' antitrust cases such as this one by an alleged excluded competitor.\
• explaining that a description of relevant market, including availability of competitor substitutes, is of critical importance
• explaining “antitrust injury for standing purposes should be viewed from the perspective of the plaintiff’s position in the marketplace”
• observing that a 58 R. Doc. 54-1 at 7. 59 Id. at 8. 60 Id. at 7. 61 R. Doc. 63 at 4. plaintiff must identify “where consumers could turn for alternative products or sources of the product if a competitor raises prices”
• finding antitrust injury, for purposes of standing, was aptly demonstrated by plaintiff, a direct competitor of the alleged monopolist who colluded with a third party to remove plaintiff from the relevant market and weaken its competitive state

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).