Difference between revisions of "Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde"
From Conservapedia
FernoKlump (Talk | contribs) m |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | In ''Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde'', 466 U.S. 2 (1984), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that a [[plaintiff]] challenging the practice of [[exclusive contracts]] by hospitals under [[antitrust]] laws must prove a negative impact of these contracts on the market to prevail. | + | In '''''Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde''''', 466 U.S. 2 (1984), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that a [[plaintiff]] challenging the practice of [[exclusive contracts]] by hospitals under [[antitrust]] laws must prove a negative impact of these contracts on the market to prevail. |
A harmful effect on the overall market was unlikely in this case because this particular hospital had perhaps only 30% of market share. | A harmful effect on the overall market was unlikely in this case because this particular hospital had perhaps only 30% of market share. | ||
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
Latest revision as of 03:15, May 3, 2008
In Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff challenging the practice of exclusive contracts by hospitals under antitrust laws must prove a negative impact of these contracts on the market to prevail.
A harmful effect on the overall market was unlikely in this case because this particular hospital had perhaps only 30% of market share.
