Charlton v. Cortez Development Corp.

Parentheticals

• “[N]umerous courts have found a market share of 30% or higher to be insufficient, by itself, to prove a dangerous probability of monopolization (citing cases)”

  White and White, Inc. v. American Hospital Supply Corp.

• “A subsequent failure to achieve monopoly status cannot itself vitiate a claim of attempted monopoly where other evidence substantially supports the attempt without eviscerating the entire attempt offense.”

  Robert's Hawaii School Bus, Inc. v. Laupahoehoe Transportation Co.

• "[An] intent to triumph in the competitive market, in the absence of unfair, anticompetitive or predatory conduct, is not enough to establish an antitrust violation." (quoting Hayes v. Solomon, 597 F.2d 958, 977 (5th Cir.1979

  Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

• “It is now well established that any rule of reason analysis requires a showing of anti-competitive market effect. To hold otherwise would ignore the very purpose of the antitrust laws which were enacted for the protection of competition, not competitors.”

  Judith Nelson and Darci Anne Bowman, Cross-Appellees v. Monroe Regional Medical Center, Formerly Known as the Monroe Clinic, Cross-Appellant

• "It is now well established that any rule of reason analysis requires a showing of anticompetitive market effect. To hold otherwise would ignore the very purpose of the antitrust laws which were enacted for the protection of competition, not competitors."

  Judith Nelson and Darci Anne Bowman, Cross-Appellees v. Monroe Regional Medical Center, Formerly Known as the Monroe Clinic, Cross-Appellant

• "[An] intent to triumph in the competitive market, in the absence of unfair, anticompetitive or predatory conduct, is not enough to establish an antitrust violation.” (quoting Hayes v. Solomon, 597 F.2d 958, 977 (5th Cir.1979

  Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

• collecting cases applying this principle to restrictive covenants

  Polk Bros., Inc. v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc.

• noncompetition covenants ancillary to sale of business

  Aydin Corporation, a Delaware Corporation v. Loral Corporation, a New York Corporation, and Conic Corporation, a Delaware Corporation

• appeal of district court’s findings after bench trial

  PPG Industries, Inc. v. Pilkington Plc

• same; parties consent to trial before, the magistrate

  Baker Industries, Inc. v. Cerberus, Ltd.

• 30% market share is not enough

  Richter Concrete Corporation, the Collinwood Shale Brick and Supply Company v. Hilltop Concrete Corporation

• 30% market share is not enough

  Arthur S. Langenderfer, Inc. v. S.E. Johnson Co.