Written by:

Charles J. Goetz

Joseph M. Hartfield
Professor of Law Emeritus
University of Virginia
School of Law

Fred S. Mcchesney

Haddad Professor of Law and Professor
Kellogg School of Management,
Northwestern University
School of Law

These cases fall into three categories: (1) opinions that are omitted from the casebook, but which are supplemental to material that is in the book; (2) more expansive versions of cases that appear only as notes; and (3) interesting cases that have been decided since the last edition went to press. These cases are in HTML format designed to be viewed with a web browser. (Printable versions, formatted similarly to the casebook, are available for download by instructors for distribution to their students.)

California Dental Assn. v. FTC. This is the Supreme Court's reversal of the 9th Circuit. It, therefore, is the predicate for the 9th Circuit's opinion on remand that appears in Sec. E of Ch. 2.

Virginia Vermiculite, 4th Circuit (1998)
Reverses trial court's initial dismissal of the conspiracy claims.

Vermiculite Daubert Opinion
Excludes testimony of plaintiff's economic expert. This is an worthwhile supplement to the Daubert material in the Tuscaloosa case. And, if you are interested in what an expert opinion in a Daubert hearing might look like, see the next document.

Vermiculite Daubert Expert Affidavit.
This is Prof. Goetz's expert opinion, cited by the court in the above opinion. (This is a Microsoft Word file.)

Vermiculite Summary Judgment
Dismisses all claims except conspiracy to monopolize.

Virginia Vermiculite, 4th Circuit (2002)
Affirms trial the trial on an interesting alternative basis: insufficient evidence of conspiracy. This is noted only briefly in Ch. 3, but may be worth your attention.

U.S. v. Microsoft, Findings of Fact
Factual determinations from trial court's original opinion (highly edited and shortened).

U.S. v. Microsoft, Conclusions of Law
Companion-piece to the above: Judge Jacksons finding of law, some of which were reversed in the D.C. Circuit's opinion below.

U.S. v. Microsoft, Court of Appeals, 2001
(rough edit)

U.S. v. Microsoft, Settlement Opinion, 2002
Essentially the final disposition of the case.

NYNEX v. Discon, Supreme Court (1998)
Considers whether the antitrust rule that group boycotts are illegal per se as set forth in Klor’s applies to a buyer’s decision to buy from one seller rather than another, when that decision cannot be justified in terms of ordinary competitive objectives

Written by:

Charles J. Goetz

Joseph M. Hartfield
Professor of Law Emeritus
University of Virginia
School of Law

Fred S. Mcchesney

Haddad Professor of Law and Professor
Kellogg School of Management,
Northwestern University
School of Law

From the 3rd Ed. Casebook

4th Edition Preview
(Lock denotes login required)

Student Resources

Teacher Resources
(Lock denotes login required)

Contact Information

California Dental Assn. v. FTC. This is the Supreme Court's reversal of the 9th Circuit. It, therefore, is the predicate for the 9th Circuit's opinion on remand that appears in Sec. E of Ch. 2.

Virginia Vermiculite, 4th Circuit (1998)
Reverses trial court's initial dismissal of the conspiracy claims.

Vermiculite Daubert Opinion
Excludes testimony of plaintiff's economic expert. This is an worthwhile supplement to the Daubert material in the Tuscaloosa case. And, if you are interested in what an expert opinion in a Daubert hearing might look like, see the next document.

Vermiculite Daubert Expert Affidavit.
This is Prof. Goetz's expert opinion, cited by the court in the above opinion. (This is a Microsoft Word file.)

Vermiculite Summary Judgment
Dismisses all claims except conspiracy to monopolize.

Virginia Vermiculite, 4th Circuit (2002)
Affirms trial the trial on an interesting alternative basis: insufficient evidence of conspiracy. This is noted only briefly in Ch. 3, but may be worth your attention.

U.S. v. Microsoft, Findings of Fact
Factual determinations from trial court's original opinion (highly edited and shortened).

U.S. v. Microsoft, Conclusions of Law
Companion-piece to the above: Judge Jacksons finding of law, some of which were reversed in the D.C. Circuit's opinion below.

U.S. v. Microsoft, Court of Appeals, 2001
(rough edit)

U.S. v. Microsoft, Settlement Opinion, 2002
Essentially the final disposition of the case.

NYNEX v. Discon, Supreme Court (1998)
Considers whether the antitrust rule that group boycotts are illegal per se as set forth in Klor’s applies to a buyer’s decision to buy from one seller rather than another, when that decision cannot be justified in terms of ordinary competitive objectives

Written by:

Joseph M. HartfieldProfessor of Law Emeritus University of VirginiaSchool of Law

Haddad Professor of Law and Professor Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern UniversitySchool of Law

From the 3rd Ed. Casebook

4th Edition Preview(Lock denotes login required)

Student Resources

Teacher Resources(Lock denotes login required)

Contact Information

California Dental Assn. v. FTC. This is the Supreme Court's reversal of the 9th Circuit. It, therefore, is the predicate for the 9th Circuit's opinion on remand that appears in Sec. E of Ch. 2.

Virginia Vermiculite, 4th Circuit (1998) Reverses trial court's initial dismissal of the conspiracy claims.

Vermiculite Daubert Opinion Excludes testimony of plaintiff's economic expert. This is an worthwhile supplement to the Daubert material in the Tuscaloosa case. And, if you are interested in what an expert opinion in a Daubert hearing might look like, see the next document.

Vermiculite Daubert Expert Affidavit. This is Prof. Goetz's expert opinion, cited by the court in the above opinion. (This is a Microsoft Word file.)

Vermiculite Summary Judgment Dismisses all claims except conspiracy to monopolize.

Virginia Vermiculite, 4th Circuit (2002) Affirms trial the trial on an interesting alternative basis: insufficient evidence of conspiracy. This is noted only briefly in Ch. 3, but may be worth your attention.

U.S. v. Microsoft, Findings of Fact Factual determinations from trial court's original opinion (highly edited and shortened).

U.S. v. Microsoft, Conclusions of Law Companion-piece to the above: Judge Jacksons finding of law, some of which were reversed in the D.C. Circuit's opinion below.

U.S. v. Microsoft, Court of Appeals, 2001 (rough edit)

U.S. v. Microsoft, Settlement Opinion, 2002 Essentially the final disposition of the case.

NYNEX v. Discon, Supreme Court (1998) Considers whether the antitrust rule that group boycotts are illegal per se as set forth in Klor’s applies to a buyer’s decision to buy from one seller rather than another, when that decision cannot be justified in terms of ordinary competitive objectives

Joseph M. Hartfield
Professor of Law Emeritus
University of Virginia
School of Law

Haddad Professor of Law and Professor
Kellogg School of Management,
Northwestern University
School of Law

4th Edition Preview
(Lock denotes login required)

Teacher Resources
(Lock denotes login required)

Virginia Vermiculite, 4th Circuit (1998)
Reverses trial court's initial dismissal of the conspiracy claims.

Vermiculite Daubert Opinion
Excludes testimony of plaintiff's economic expert. This is an worthwhile supplement to the Daubert material in the Tuscaloosa case. And, if you are interested in what an expert opinion in a Daubert hearing might look like, see the next document.

Vermiculite Daubert Expert Affidavit.
This is Prof. Goetz's expert opinion, cited by the court in the above opinion. (This is a Microsoft Word file.)

Vermiculite Summary Judgment
Dismisses all claims except conspiracy to monopolize.

Virginia Vermiculite, 4th Circuit (2002)
Affirms trial the trial on an interesting alternative basis: insufficient evidence of conspiracy. This is noted only briefly in Ch. 3, but may be worth your attention.

U.S. v. Microsoft, Findings of Fact
Factual determinations from trial court's original opinion (highly edited and shortened).

U.S. v. Microsoft, Conclusions of Law
Companion-piece to the above: Judge Jacksons finding of law, some of which were reversed in the D.C. Circuit's opinion below.

U.S. v. Microsoft, Court of Appeals, 2001
(rough edit)

U.S. v. Microsoft, Settlement Opinion, 2002
Essentially the final disposition of the case.

NYNEX v. Discon, Supreme Court (1998)
Considers whether the antitrust rule that group boycotts are illegal per se as set forth in Klor’s applies to a buyer’s decision to buy from one seller rather than another, when that decision cannot be justified in terms of ordinary competitive objectives