Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP
GPTKB entity
Statements (50)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:legal_case
|
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
focused on essential facilities doctrine
|
| gptkbp:case_number |
involved multiple appeals
03-338 |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
5-4 decision
significant for antitrust law Trinko's claims were not actionable limited antitrust liability majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia narrowed antitrust interpretations reaffirmed limited antitrust obligations |
| gptkbp:case_significance |
important for telecommunications law
|
| gptkbp:case_types |
civil case
|
| gptkbp:consequences |
reduced obligations for incumbents
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
dissent by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
|
| gptkbp:effective_date |
April 2, 2004
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP
|
| gptkbp:impact |
local exchange carriers
telecommunications industry regulations |
| gptkbp:influenced |
FCC regulations
|
| gptkbp:involves |
gptkb:Verizon_Communications_Inc.
gptkb:Law_Offices_of_Curtis_V._Trinko,_LLP |
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
540 U. S. 398
|
| gptkbp:is_standardized_by |
no duty to deal under antitrust law
|
| gptkbp:judged_by |
affirmed lower court's ruling
|
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
reviewed by the Supreme Court
|
| gptkbp:legal_context |
competition in local telecommunications markets
in the context of telecommunications deregulation |
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
upheld Verizon's practices
examined under Section 2 of the Sherman Act |
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
antitrust law
|
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
dismissed Trinko's claims
limited scope of antitrust claims |
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
essential facilities doctrine
|
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
Trinko represented by the Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP
Verizon represented by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP examined antitrust claims against monopolies |
| gptkbp:legislation |
gptkb:Telecommunications_Act
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
ruled in favor of Verizon
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
set precedent for future cases
subsequent antitrust cases influenced future telecommunications litigation |
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:AT&_T_Corp._v._Iowa_Utilities_Board
|
| gptkbp:related_to |
gptkb:Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
|
| gptkbp:significance |
clarified antitrust obligations of telecommunications companies
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:William_Rehnquist
gptkb:William_H._Rehnquist |
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
4
|