In an antitrust action claiming that defendant-hospital’s refusal to deal with nephrologists other than those in its in-house practice, including plaintiff, amounted to the monopolization, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where 1) the hospital had no antitrust duty to share its facilities with plaintiff at the expense of its own nephrology practice; and 2) in demanding access to defendant’s facilities, plaintiff sought to share the hospital’s putative monopoly.
Read Four Corners Nephrology Assocs., P.C. v. Mercy Med. Ctr. of Durango, No. 08-1231
Appellate Information
Filed September 30, 2009
Judges
Opinion by Judge Hartz
Counsel
For Appellant:
Jack Shelton, Wichita, KS
For Appellee:
Patrick J. Kenney, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, St. Louis, MO, and Karrie J. Clinkinbeard, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Kansas City, MO
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
