Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n’s Empirical Analysis
735 F.2d 577 · 1984
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2007 · most notably National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma (1984), Advanced Health-Care Services, Inc. v. Radford Community Hospital (1990)
12 federal appellate · 7 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on United States v. Grinnell Corp. · Continental Inc v. Gte Sylvania Incorporated · California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp. · American Tobacco Co. v. United States · Times-Picayune Pub Co v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Accordingly, the use of monopoly power in one market to gain a competitive advantage in another is a violation of § 2 even if there has not been an attempt to monopolize the second market. It is the use of economic power that creates the liability. But, as we have indicated, a large firm does not violate § 2 simply by reaping the competitive rewards attributable to its efficient size, nor does an integrated business offend the Sherman Act whenever one of its departments benefits from association with a division possessing a monopoly in its own market. So long as we allow a firm to compete in several fields, we must expect it to seek the competitive advantages of its broad-based activity— more efficient production, greater ability to develop complementary products, reduced transaction costs, and so forth. These are gains that accrue to any integrated firm, regardless of its market share, and they cannot by themselves be considered uses of monopoly power.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[S]pecific intent ... has little relation to the defendant’s altruistic or malevolent motivations. Rather, specific intent in this context refers to a purpose to acquire monopoly power by driving one’s rival from the market by exclusionary or predatory means. The law thus requires not why but whether one intends to acquire unlawful monopoly power.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony....””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.