Search for: "Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc."
Results 1 - 18
of 18
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jun 2021, 12:00 am
Squeezing linkLine: Rethinking Recoupment in Price Squeeze Cases Patrick Kennedy Stanford Law School Abstract The Supreme Court’s decision in Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc. removed an important tool from competition regulators’ arsenals. [read post]
30 Jul 2008, 9:32 pm
LinkLine Communications, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Dec 2008, 4:27 am
Supreme Court oral argument in Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc., No. 07-512, at this link. [read post]
26 Feb 2009, 3:32 pm
Yesterday, the Supreme Court in Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. [read post]
11 Mar 2009, 3:42 pm
In Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. [read post]
25 Feb 2009, 11:58 am
Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc., No. 07-512 (U.S. [read post]
24 Aug 2008, 4:00 am
The petitioner’s merits brief is due Thursday in Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications (07-512) and Friday in Ashcroft v. [read post]
8 Sep 2008, 3:35 pm
Pacific Bell Telephone Co. [read post]
25 Feb 2009, 7:15 am
" The Court today also issued its ruling in a second argued case, Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc., No. 07-512. [read post]
23 Jun 2008, 3:05 pm
Pacific Bell Telephone Co., dba AT&T California v. linkLine Communications - the Ninth Circuit held the Sherman Antitrust Act permits "price squeeze" claims against companies with no duty to sell to others at wholesale. [read post]
10 Nov 2014, 3:35 pm
A sixth decision, in Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. [read post]
23 Jun 2008, 2:46 pm
Docket: 07-512 Case name: Pacific Bell Telephone Co., dba AT&T California v. linkLine Communications Issue: Whether Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act permits a "price squeeze" claim if the defendant has no duty to deal. [read post]
6 Dec 2007, 3:19 pm
In Verizon Communications, Inc. v. [read post]
5 May 2009, 1:38 am
The Supreme Court's back-of-the-hand treatment of such an iconic precedent in the recent Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications Inc. is remarkable. [read post]
4 Jun 2008, 2:46 pm
(in support of the petition) Brief amicus curiae of United States (recommending denial of certiorari) __________________ Docket: 07-512 Case name: Pacific Bell Telephone Co., dba AT&T California v. linkLine Communications Issue: Whether Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act permits a "price squeeze" claim if the defendant has no duty to deal. [read post]
30 Oct 2020, 11:06 am
Linkline Communications Inc. [read post]
15 Apr 2010, 2:19 pm
Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340. [read post]
12 May 2009, 12:20 pm
The goal of these efforts was to clarify the analytical framework for assessing the legality of single-firm conduct and to provide guidance to the courts, antitrust counselors, and the business community. [read post]
