Pacific Bell Telephone Co., dba AT&T California v. linkLine Communications
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Dec 8, 2008
|Feb 25, 2009||9-0||Roberts||OT 2008|
Issue: Whether Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act permits a â€œprice squeezeâ€ claim if the defendant has no duty to deal.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts on February 25, 2009.
- Recap of decision in AT&T v. linkLine (Kevin Russell)
- SCOTUSwiki Preview: Pacific Bell Telephone Co.,dba AT&T California v. linkLine Communications (Max Schwartz)
Briefs and Documents
- Brief for Petitioner Pacific Bell Tel. Company, D/B/A AT&T California, et al.
- Brief for Respondent Linkline Communications Inc., et al
- Reply Brief for Petitioner Pacific Bell Telephone Company, D/B/A AT&T California, et al.
- Brief for Professors and Scholars of Law and Economics in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Verizon Communication, Inc., and the National Association of Manufacturers in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Washington Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the United States of America in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Abbott Laboratories in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Commonwealth of Virginia and 8 Other States in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for COMPTEL in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the American Antitrust Institute in Support of Dismissal of the Writ or Affirmance
- Opinion below (9th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner's reply
- Amicus brief of Verizon Communications, Inc. in support of Petitioner
- Amicus brief of Professors and Scholars in Law and Economics in support of Petitioner
- Amicus brief of the United States recommending grant
- Statement of Federal Trade Commission in Opposition to Brief of the United States