United States v. Portenoy Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that before court engaged “in the micromanagement of the staffing arrangements ... under the aegis of the antitrust laws,” court needed “better reasons than the plaintiffs have given.”
• dissenting opinion by Cudahay, J., criticizing the majority for upholding dismissal on the pleadings alone
• describing the “conspiracy engaged in by BHS and STAR Anesthesia to eliminate 70% of pediatric anesthesiologists from providing pediatric anesthesia services in BHS facilities”
• collecting cases and noting that “[t]he cases involving staffing at a single provided STAR Anesthesia a true monopoly over the BHS hospital system”
• “Those cases [involving staffing at a single hospital] invariably analyze those circumstances under the rule of reason”
• “there is nothing obviously anticompetitive about a hospital choosing one staffing pattern over another or in restricting the staffing to some rather than many, or all”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).