Rickard v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “opportunities for competition remained]” for three-year exclusive dealing contract with early termination provision
• finding that state and federal actions were parallel when 15 the actions raised overlapping, but not identical, factual issues and the insurer was not a 16 party in the underlying state court action
• noting that courts have developed a two-pronged test for determining antitrust standing: (1) whether the plaintiff suffered an antitrust injury; and (2) an analysis of other factors \largely relating to the directness and identifiability of the plaintiff's injury\
• finding that plaintiff anesthesiologist did not have standing where the group of which he was a member lost an exclusive contract to another bidder because the injury “came as a result of his losing out in the competition”
• finding no anticom-petitive effect where the substitution of one provider for another did not change the market “[f]rom the consumers’ point of view”
• no standing because exclusive dealing claim “alleged no threat of ‘adverse economic consequences’ to anyone but [plaintiff]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).