Four Corners Nephrology Associates, P.C. v. Mercy Medical Center

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the denial of an opportunity “to share in [the defendant’s] putative monopoly” was insufficient to establish antitrust injury because even though “[the plaintiff] . . . might be better off with such a shared monopoly, . . . there’s no guarantee consumers would be”
• concluding physician failed to establish antitrust injury where hospital refused to grant him privileges because antitrust laws protect consumers from suppliers, rather than to protect suppliers from each other
• concluding clinic was not required to share its facilities with a competitor
• rejecting the notion that the court should force the defendant monopolist to share its monopoly with the plaintiff because, inter alia, “[t]he federal judiciary is not a price control agency”
• finding no antitrust injury because even though a 33 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc
• “[A]ntitrust courts normally avoid direct price administration, relying [instead] on rules and 46 remedies . . . that are easier to administer.” (second alteration and omission in original

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).