Town of Concord, Massachusetts v. Boston Edison Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that alleged price squeeze did not violate Sherman Act because utility's rates were regulated
• holding that alleged price squeeze did not violate [the] Sherman Act because utility’s rates were regulated
• rejecting claim of an antitrust violation involving a price squeeze in the state-regulated retail electric business following a wholesale price increase that had been approved by FERC and was not challenged in the court case
• applying M/S Bremen to enforce 18 forum selection clause against non-signatory plaintiff
• in making exclusionary conduct analysis, court compares challenged practice’s likely anticompetitive effects with its potentially legitimate business justifications
• antitrust rules “must be clear enough for lawyers to explain them to clients”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).