Verizon Communications v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP
Encyclopedia
Verizon Communications v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, often shortened to Verizon v. Trinko, 540 U.S. 398
(2004), is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States
in the field of Antitrust
law. It held that the Telecommunications Act of 1996
had not modified the framework of the Sherman Act, preserving claims that satisfy established antitrust standards without creating new claims that go beyond those standards. More importantly, it refused to extend the essential facilities doctrine
beyond the facts of the controversial Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.
case.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(2004), is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
in the field of Antitrust
Antitrust
The United States antitrust law is a body of laws that prohibits anti-competitive behavior and unfair business practices. Antitrust laws are intended to encourage competition in the marketplace. These competition laws make illegal certain practices deemed to hurt businesses or consumers or both,...
law. It held that the Telecommunications Act of 1996
Telecommunications Act of 1996
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the first major overhaul of United States telecommunications law in nearly 62 years, amending the Communications Act of 1934. This Act, signed by President Bill Clinton, was a major stepping stone towards the future of telecommunications, since this was the...
had not modified the framework of the Sherman Act, preserving claims that satisfy established antitrust standards without creating new claims that go beyond those standards. More importantly, it refused to extend the essential facilities doctrine
Essential facilities doctrine
The essential facilities doctrine is a legal doctrine which describes a particular type of claim of monopolization made under competition laws. In general, it refers to a type of anti-competitive behavior in which a firm with market power uses a "bottleneck" in a market to deny competitors entry...
beyond the facts of the controversial Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.
Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.
Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, notable as "the very last gasp" of the Harvard School of antitrust....
case.
See also
External links
Full text opinion from FindlawFindLaw
FindLaw is a business of Thomson Reuters that provides online legal information and online marketing services for law firms. FindLaw was created by Stacy Stern, Martin Roscheisen and Tim Stanley in 1995, and was acquired by Thomson West in 2001....