| dbo:abstract
|
- Verizon Communications v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, often shortened to Verizon v. Trinko, 540 U.S. 398 (2004), is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in the field of Antitrust law. It held that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 had not modified the framework of the Sherman Act, preserving claims that satisfy established antitrust standards without creating new claims that go beyond those standards. It also refused to extend the essential facilities doctrine beyond the facts of the Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. case. (en)
|
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 2813 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:arguedate
|
- 0001-10-14 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:argueyear
| |
| dbp:case
|
- Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, (en)
|
| dbp:concurrence
| |
| dbp:courtlistener
| |
| dbp:decidedate
|
- 0001-01-13 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:decideyear
| |
| dbp:fullname
|
- Verizon Communications, Petitioner v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP (en)
|
| dbp:googlescholar
| |
| dbp:holding
|
- Respondent's complaint alleging breach of an incumbent LEC's 1996 Act duty to share its network with competitors does not state a claim under ยง2 of the Sherman Act. (en)
|
| dbp:joinconcurrence
| |
| dbp:joinmajority
|
- Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer (en)
|
| dbp:justia
| |
| dbp:litigants
|
- Verizon Communications v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP (en)
|
| dbp:loc
| |
| dbp:majority
| |
| dbp:oyez
| |
| dbp:parallelcitations
| |
| dbp:uspage
| |
| dbp:usvol
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- Verizon Communications v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, often shortened to Verizon v. Trinko, 540 U.S. 398 (2004), is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in the field of Antitrust law. It held that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 had not modified the framework of the Sherman Act, preserving claims that satisfy established antitrust standards without creating new claims that go beyond those standards. It also refused to extend the essential facilities doctrine beyond the facts of the Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. case. (en)
|
| rdfs:label
|
- Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP (en)
|
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| foaf:name
|
- (en)
- Verizon Communications, Petitioner v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP (en)
|
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
