WebMore recently, the law has eased so that, for the modified per se rule to apply, the tying firm must have substantial mar- ket power in the market for the tying product (again, probably at least in the 30 percent range; see Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 … WebU.S. Reports: Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2 (1984). Contributor Names Stevens, John Paul (Judge) Supreme Court of the United States (Author) Created / Published 1983 Subject Headings - Contracts - Law - Hospitals - Law Library - Supreme Court - United States - Government Documents - Judicial review and appeals
JEFFERSON PARISH HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 2, et al., …
WebAug 17, 2016 · The United States Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde, in which the Court evaluated the “tying” of anesthesiology services to surgical services at a New Orleans hospital, requiring all patients at the hospital to use a single group of anesthesiologists. WebHyde, who competes with the Roux anesthesiologists, and other hospitals in the area, who compete with East Jefferson, may have grounds to complain that the exclusive contract stifles horizontal competition and therefore has an adverse, albeit indirect, impact on consumer welfare even if it is not a tie. new today show host weekend
Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde
WebJEFFERSON PARISH. tracts, however, have come under attack as violating the antitrust laws, specifically those prohibiting "tying arrangements. ' 5. The Supreme Court recently addressed these contentions in Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde. 6 . The Court held that an exclusive contract providing for a physician group WebDec 2, 1986 · Accord Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2, 26, 104 S.Ct. 1551, 1566, 80 L.Ed.2d 2 (1984) (30% market share insufficient to infer market power). Appellant Root would have us circumvent the above finding in a number of ways. WebJefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde , 466 U.S. 2 (1984), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the analysis of the tying issue must focus on … new today\u0027s dental 7617 46th ave ste cf1