# Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde

> Supreme Court of the United States · March 27, 1984 · 466 U.S. 2

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9429552

## Case

- **Full name:** JEFFERSON PARISH HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 2 Et Al. v. HYDE
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** March 27, 1984
- **Citations:** 466 U.S. 2; 52 U.S.L.W. 4385; 104 S. Ct. 1551; 80 L. Ed. 2d 2; 1984 U.S. LEXIS 49
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brennan
- **Judges:** O'Connor, Stevens, Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Nor, Burger, Powell, Rehnquist
- **Cited by:** 841 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Reported abrogated on other grounds by Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28 (2006) — not on the Supreme Court's list.
- Negative treatments: 3
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9429552

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that the petitioner’s conduct “does not have the obviously unreasonable impact on purchasers that has characterized the tying arrangements that [the Supreme Court] has branded unlawful,” as “[t]here is no evidence that the price, the quality, or the supply or demand…
- explaining that exclusive dealing relationships “may, in some circumstances, create or extend market power of a supplier or the purchaser ... and may thus restrain horizontal competition,” but that such agreements may also be “substantially procompetitive by ensuring stable ma…
- explaining that “[t]he per se rule’s direct consumer demand and indirect industry cus- tom inquiries are, as a general matter, backward-looking and therefore systemically poor proxies for overall efficiency in the presence of new and innovative integration”
- stating that a tying arrangement is not illegal unless there is enough demand for each service or product independently from the other “to identify a distinct product market in which it is efficient to offer [each service or product] separately”
- holding that a market share of 30% was insufficient to permit exercise of market power

## Opinion text

Justice Brennan,
with whom Justice Marshall joins, concurring.
As the opinion for the Court demonstrates, we have long held that tying arrangements are subject to evaluation for per se illegality under § 1 of the Sherman Act. Whatever merit the policy arguments against this longstanding construction of the Act might have, Congress, presumably aware of our decisions, has never changed the rule by amending the Act. In such circumstances, our practice usually has been to stand by a settled statutory interpretation and leave the task of modifying the statute’s reach to Congress. See Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., 465 U. S. 752, 769 (1984) (Brennan, J., concurring). I see no reason to depart from that principle in this case and therefore join the opinion and judgment of the Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9429552. Public record. Not legal advice.