Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Verizon v. Trinko, LLP

Docket No.: 02-682
Argued: October 14, 2003
Decided: January 13, 2004

Topics:

Sherman, Economic Activity, Antitrust, Antitrust, Article I, Bill of Rights, ERISA, Fourth Amendment, Miranda, Sherman Act, antitrust, judicial review, privacy, probable cause, sovereign immunity, statutory standing

PartyNames: Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP
Petitioner: Verizon Communications Inc.
Respondent: Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Citation: CA 2, 305 F.3d 89. QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether allegations of inadequacies in a monopolist's affirmative assistance to itsrivals, including resellers--as newly provided by incumbent local telephone companies under the Telecommunications Act of 1996--state a claim for unlawfulunilateral predatory conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
Supreme Court Docket

Verizon Communications Inc.
v.
Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP
540 U.S. 398 (2004)
Consideration Limited:

Limited to the following question:"Did the Court of Appeals err in revers ing the District Court's dismissal of respondent's antitrust claims?"

Question Presented:

I. Whether allegations of inadequacies in a monopolist's affirmative assistance to itsrivals, including resellers--as newly provided by incumbent local telephone companies under the Telecommunications Act of 1996--state a claim for unlawfulunilateral predatory conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. 2. Whether antitrust and Communications Act standing extends to indirectpurchasers, i.e., the customers of the defendant's customer, asserting injuries wholly derivative of the direct customer's injury, even when invoking only the directcustomer's legal rights. CERT. GRANTED: 3/10/03Limited to the following question: "Did the Court of Appeals err in revers ing the District Court's dismissal ofrespondent's antitrust claims? "

Question:

When a company fails to meet its duty to share its network with competitors under the Telecommunications Act, can it be sued under the Sherman Act?

Note:

. CA 2, 305 F.3d 89.

Verizon v. Trinko, LLP
ORAL ARGUMENT

October 14, 2003

Holding: reversed and remanded
Decision: Decision: 9 votes for Verizon, 0 vote(s) against
Vote: 9-0
Opinion By: Justice Antonin Scalia
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)