Winn v. Shugart

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that availability of \more cost-effective\ providers is a \valid business reason[ ]\ for terminating relationship
• concluding that availability of “more cost‐ 11 effective” providers is a “valid business reason[]” for terminating relationship
• holding that “every action by a trade association is not concerted action by [its] members.”
• noting that “a district court’s decision whether to permit oral argument rests within its discretion” (citation omitted)
• affirming grant of summary judgment for the defendant in part because “the market for rush electronic delivery of advertisements to newspapers is not a viable one” because “there is significant cross-elasticity of demand for rush and non-rush delivery services”
• “we have held that a 33 percent market share does not approach the level required for a showing of dangerous probability of monopoly power”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).