| 词条 | Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde |
| 释义 |
|Litigants=Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde |ArgueDate=November 2 |ArgueYear=1983 |DecideDate=March 27 |DecideYear=1984 |FullName=Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2, et al. v. Edwin G. Hyde |USVol=466 |USPage=2 |ParallelCitations=104 S. Ct. 1551; 80 L. Ed. 2d 2; 1984 U.S. LEXIS 49; 52 U.S.L.W. 4385; 1984-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 65,908 |Prior= |Subsequent= |Holding=The analysis of the tying issue must focus on the hospital's sale of services to its patients, rather than its contractual arrangements with the providers of anesthesiological services. In making that analysis, consideration must be given to whether petitioners are selling two separate products that may be tied together, and, if so, whether they have used their market power to force their patients to accept the tying arrangement. |SCOTUS=1981-1986 |Majority=Stevens |JoinMajority=Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun |Concurrence=Brennan |JoinConcurrence=Marshall |Concurrence2=O'Connor |JoinConcurrence2=Burger, Powell, Rehnquist |LawsApplied=Sherman Antitrust Act }} Jefferson 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 the hospital's sale of services to its patients, rather than its contractual arrangements with the providers of anesthesiological services. In making that analysis, consideration must be given to whether petitioners are selling two separate products that may be tied together, and, if so, whether they have used their market power to force their patients to accept the tying arrangement. It set a permissive precedent in antitrust law, as some{{who|date=August 2018}} viewed tying as always anticompetitive. RationaleAny inquiry into the validity of a tying arrangement must focus on the market or markets in which the two products are sold, for that is where the anticompetitive forcing has its impact. Thus, in this case, the analysis of the tying issue must focus on the hospital's sale of services to its patients, rather than its contractual arrangements with the providers of anesthesiological services. In making that analysis, consideration must be given to whether petitioners are selling two separate products that may be tied together, and, if so, whether they have used their market power to force their patients to accept the tying arrangement.[1] There is no evidence that the price, quality, or supply or demand for either the "tying product" or the "tied product" has been adversely affected by the exclusive contract, and no showing that the market as a whole has been affected at all by the contract.[2] References1. ^https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/2/ 2. ^https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/2/ External links
| case = Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde, {{ussc|466|2|1984|el=no}} | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/111139/jefferson-parish-hospital-dist-no-2-v-hyde/ | findlaw = https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/466/2.html | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17275004180560417677 | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/2/case.html | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep466/usrep466002/usrep466002.pdf | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/82-1031{{Jefferson Parish, Louisiana}}{{authority control}}{{SCOTUS-stub}} 6 : United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court|United States antitrust case law|Jefferson Parish, Louisiana|Hospitals in Louisiana|1984 in United States case law |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。