finding that “[w]hile [plaintiff] alleges in its Amended Complaint that it is [defendant’s] competitor in the retail and wholesale markets, those assertions are belied by both the remaining factual allegations and the law”
How later courts described this case
- finding that “[w]hile [plaintiff] alleges in its Amended Complaint that it is [defendant’s] competitor in the retail and wholesale markets, those assertions are belied by both the remaining factual allegations and the law”
- explaining that "[w]hen reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, [the court] must accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them”
- explaining that “[w]hen reviewing a 12(b)(6) dismissal, [the Court] must accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them”
- finding conduct did not violate antitrust laws where absent that conduct consumers would still receive the same product and the same amount of competition
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
June 2, 1997
The petition for rehearing filed by appellant in the above entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied.