About: Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- Rule:
- Inverse Functional Properties:
- "Same As":

About: Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase, within Data Space : dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon

http://dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FAspen_Skiing_Co._v._Aspen_Highlands_Skiing_Corp.&invfp=IFP_OFF&sas=SAME_AS_OFF

Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case that decided whether a dominant firm's unilateral refusal to deal with a competitor could establish a monopolization claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The unanimous Supreme Court agreed with the 10th Circuit that terminating a pro-consumer joint venture without a legitimate business justification could constitute illegal monopolization. However, its decision created an exception to the general rule that firms can decide with whom to do business absent collusion, sparking significant controversy about the appropriate scope of this exception. In a subsequent case, Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, st

Attributes	Values
rdf:type	Thing case Legal Case unit of work Legal case yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCases yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:Case107308889 yago:Event100029378 yago:Happening107283608 yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity Supreme Court of the United States case
rdfs:label	Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. (en)
rdfs:comment	Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case that decided whether a dominant firm's unilateral refusal to deal with a competitor could establish a monopolization claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The unanimous Supreme Court agreed with the 10th Circuit that terminating a pro-consumer joint venture without a legitimate business justification could constitute illegal monopolization. However, its decision created an exception to the general rule that firms can decide with whom to do business absent collusion, sparking significant controversy about the appropriate scope of this exception. In a subsequent case, Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, st (en)
foaf:name	Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. (en)
dcterms:subject	United States Supreme Court cases United States antitrust case law 1985 in United States case law United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court Aspen Skiing Company Legal history of Colorado
Wikipage page ID	29609483 (xsd:integer)
Wikipage revision ID	1116549481 (xsd:integer)
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage	F.2d Monopolization United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP LexisNexis 10th Cir. United States Supreme Court cases Essential facilities doctrine Relevant market Lorain Journal Co. v. United States Snowmass (ski area) United States antitrust case law Buttermilk (ski area) CCH (company) 1985 in United States case law Whip Jones Lawyers' Edition Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc. Aspen, Colorado Aspen Highlands Aspen Mountain (ski area) Aspen Skiing Company United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court LePage's, Inc. v. 3M Supreme Court of the United States Economies of scale Aspen Skiing Company Legal history of Colorado Sherman Antitrust Act Small but significant and non-transitory increase in price
Link from a Wikipage to an external page	https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/111483/aspen-skiing-co-v-aspen-highlands-skiing-corp/ http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep472/usrep472585/usrep472585.pdf https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/472/585.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/738/1509/135745/ https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case%3Fcase=2019566369655969532 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/472/585/case.html https://www.oyez.org/cases/1984/84-510
sameAs	Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate	dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:Expand_section dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Reflist dbt:Ussc
JoinMajority	unanimous (en)
LawsApplied	Sherman Antitrust Act
oyez	https://www.oyez.org/cases/1984/84-510
ParallelCitations	172800.0 (second)
Prior	17280.0 (second)
USPage	585 (xsd:integer)
USVol	472 (xsd:integer)
ArgueDate	0001-03-27 (xsd:gMonthDay)
ArgueYear	1985 (xsd:integer)
case	Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., (en)
courtlistener	https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/111483/aspen-skiing-co-v-aspen-highlands-skiing-corp/
DecideDate	0001-06-19 (xsd:gMonthDay)
DecideYear	1985 (xsd:integer)
findlaw	https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/472/585.html
fullname	Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. (en)
Holding	The question of intent is relevant to the offense of monopolization under § 2 of the Sherman Act in determining whether the challenged conduct is fairly characterized as "exclusionary," "anticompetitive," or "predatory." The monopolist did not merely reject a novel offer to participate in a cooperative venture that had been proposed by a competitor, but instead changed a pattern of distribution that had originated in a competitive market and had persisted for several years without any efficiency justification for doing so. (en)
justia	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/472/585/case.html
Litigants	Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. (en)
majority	Stevens (en)
loc	http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep472/usrep472585/usrep472585.pdf
has abstract	Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case that decided whether a dominant firm's unilateral refusal to deal with a competitor could establish a monopolization claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The unanimous Supreme Court agreed with the 10th Circuit that terminating a pro-consumer joint venture without a legitimate business justification could constitute illegal monopolization. However, its decision created an exception to the general rule that firms can decide with whom to do business absent collusion, sparking significant controversy about the appropriate scope of this exception. In a subsequent case, Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, stated that Aspen Skiing is "at or near the outer boundary of § 2 liability." Although its holding has been narrowed, this case's relevance remains contested, especially in the context of refusals to license intellectual property. (en)
googlescholar	https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case%3Fcase=2019566369655969532
NotParticipating	White (en)
prov:wasDerivedFrom	wikipedia-en:Aspen_Skiing_Co._v._Aspen_Highlands_Skiing_Corp.?oldid=1116549481&ns=0
page length (characters) of wiki page	21632 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf	wikipedia-en:Aspen_Skiing_Co._v._Aspen_Highlands_Skiing_Corp.
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage of	List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Burger Court United States antitrust law United States v. Terminal Railroad Association

Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024

Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3330 as of Mar 19 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (378 GB total memory, 56 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software