Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan
1993 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States rejected the assertion that attempted monopolization may be proven merely by demonstration of unfair or predatory conduct.[1] Instead, conduct of a single firm could be held to be unlawful attempted monopolization only when it actually monopolized or dangerously threatened to do so. Thus, the Court rejected the conclusion that injury to competition could be presumed to follow from certain conduct. The causal link must be demonstrated.
Quick Facts Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, Argued November 10, 1992 Decided January 25, 1993 ...
Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan | |
---|---|
Argued November 10, 1992 Decided January 25, 1993 | |
Full case name | Spectrum Sports, Inc., et al v. Shirley McQuillan, et vir, DBA Sorboturf Enterprises |
Citations | 506 U.S. 447 (more) 113 S. Ct. 884; 122 L. Ed. 2d 247; 1993 U.S. LEXIS 1013 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Case history | |
Prior | McQuillan v. Sorbothane, Inc., 907 F.2d 154 (9th Cir. 1990); cert. granted, 503 U.S. 958 (1992). |
Subsequent | On remand, McQuillan v. Sorbothane, Inc., 23 F.3d 1531 (9th Cir. 1994) |
Holding | |
Spectrum Sports may not be liable for attempted monopolization under § 2 absent proof of a dangerous probability that they would monopolize a relevant market and specific intent to monopolize. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Majority | White, joined by unanimous |
Laws applied | |
Sherman Antitrust Act, Clayton Act |
Close