Cascade Health Solutions v. Peacehealth

Ninth Circuit

Cascade Health Solutions v. Peacehealth

479 F.3d 726, 2007 WL 823902

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 19, 2007

Docket05-35627, 05-35640, 05-36153, 05-36202

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 479 F.3d 726 (Cascade Health Solutions v. Peacehealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cascade Health Solutions v. Peacehealth, 479 F.3d 726, 2007 WL 823902 (9th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The court invites supplemental briefs by any amicus curiae addressing the following issue raised in this appeal: Whether a plaintiff who seeks to establish the predatory or anticompetitive conduct element of an attempted monopolization claim under § 2 of the Sherman Act by showing that the defendant offered bundled discounts to the defendant’s customers must prove that the defendant’s prices were below an appropriate measure of the defendant’s costs. If so, what is the appropriate measure of costs and how should the trial court instruct the jury on the matter of costs? If not, what standard should the trial court instruct the jury to use to determine whether the bundled discounts are predatory or anticompetitive?

Any briefs responding to this order shall be filed no later than thirty days from the filed date of this order. All briefs shall comply with the page or type-volume limitations set forth in Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 29(d) and 32(a)(7). Any person or entity wishing to file a brief as an amicus curiae in response to this order is granted leave to do so pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

The court invites supplemental briefs by any amicus curiae addressing the following issue raised in this appeal: Whether a plaintiff who seeks to establish the predatory or anticompetitive conduct element of an attempted monopolization claim under § 2 of the Sherman Act by showing that the defendant offered bundled discounts to the defendant’s customers must prove that the defendant’s prices were below an appropriate measure of the defendant’s costs. If so, what is the appropriate measure of costs and how should the trial court instruct the jury on the matter of costs? If not, what standard should the trial court instruct the jury to use to determine whether the bundled discounts are predatory or anticompetitive?

Any briefs responding to this order shall be filed no later than thirty days from the filed date of this order. All briefs shall comply with the page or type-volume limitations set forth in Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 29(d) and 32(a)(7). Any person or entity wishing to file a brief as an amicus curiae in response to this order is granted leave to do so pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a).

Cascade Health Solutions Fka, McKenzie Hospital, an Oregon Nonprofit Corporation v. Peacehealth, a Washington State Nonprofit Corporation, Cascade Health Solutions Fka McKenzie Hospital, an Oregon Nonprofit Corporation v. Peacehealth, a Washington State Nonprofit Corporation, Cascade Health Solutions Fka McKenzie Hospital, an Oregon Nonprofit Corporation v. Peacehealth, a Washington State Nonprofit Corporation, Cascade Health Solutions Fka McKenzie Hospital, an Oregon Nonprofit Corporation v. Peacehealth, a Washington State Nonprofit Corporation

479 F.3d 726 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

479 F.3d 726, 2007 WL 823902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cascade-health-solutions-v-peacehealth-ca9-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack