- Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan
Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants=Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan
ArgueDate=November 10
ArgueYear=1992
DecideDate=January 25
DecideYear=1993
FullName=Spectrum Sports, Inc., et al., Petitioners
v.
Shirley McQuillan, et vir, DBA Sorboturf Enterprises
OralArgument=http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_10/argument/
USVol=506
USPage=447
Citation=113 S. Ct. 884
Prior=
Subsequent=
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.
SCOTUS=1991-1993
Majority=White
JoinMajority="unanimous court"
LawsApplied="Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan", 506 U.S. 447 (
1993 ) was aUnited States Supreme Court cases, in which the Court rejected the assertion that attemptedmonopolization may be proven merely by demonstration of unfair or predatory conduct. 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 tocompetition could be presumed to follow from certain conduct. The causal link "must" be demonstrated.ee also
*
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 506
*"Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. ", ussc|509|209|1993Further reading
*cite journal |last=Muris |first=Timothy J. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2000 |month= |title=The FTC and the Law of Monopolization |journal=Antitrust Law Journal |volume=67 |issue=3 |pages=693 |doi=10.2139/ssrn.235403 |url= |accessdate= |quote=
*cite journal |last=Balto |first=David A. |authorlink= |coauthors=Nagata, Ernest A. |year=2000 |month= |title=Proof of Competitive Effects in Monopolization Cases: A Response to Professor Muris |journal=Antitrust Law Journal |volume=68 |issue= |pages=309 |id= |url= |accessdate= |quote=
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.