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.
| Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 2, 1983 Decided March 27, 1984 | |
| Full case name | Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2, et al. v. Edwin G. Hyde |
| Citations | 466 U.S. 2 (more) 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 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Hyde v. Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. No. 2, 513 F. Supp. 532 (E.D. La. 1981); reversed, 686 F.2d 286 (5th Cir. 1982); cert. granted, 460 U.S. 1021 (1983). |
| 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. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stevens, joined by Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun |
| Concurrence | Brennan, joined by Marshall |
| Concurrence | O'Connor, joined by Burger, Powell, Rehnquist |
| Laws applied | |
| Sherman Antitrust Act | |
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?] viewed tying as always anticompetitive.
Rationale
editAny 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.[1] The case invokes the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, a notable piece of antitrust legislation.[2]
See also
edit- Levy v. Louisiana: Supreme Court case involving hospital in New Orleans
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 466
References
edit- ^ a b "Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2 (1984)". Justia Law.
- ^ Hodgson, Matthew (2019). "No Such Thing as Partial Per se: Why Jefferson Parish v. Hyde Should be Abolished in Favor of a Rule of Reason Standard for Tying Arrangements". p. 315.
External links
edit- Text of Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2 (1984) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |