Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

NYNEX Corp. v. Discon, Inc.

United States Supreme Court
525 U.S. 128 (1998)


Facts

After the breakup of an existing monopoly on television services, newly independent local telephone companies were required to grant long-distance service providers with physical access to local telephone systems and customers. To accommodate this access, the local telephone companies were required to install new telephone equipment and remove old equipment. A market developed for the removal of old telephone equipment. Discon, Inc. (Discon) (plaintiff), was a company that removed old telephone equipment for New York Telephone Company (NYC Co.), which was owned by NYNEX Corporation (Nynex) (defendant). Materiel Enterprises (Materiel) was also owned by Nynex and was responsible for purchasing removal services for NYC Co. Eventually, Discon was dropped as NYC Co.’s provider of removal services in favor of a competitor of Discon’s, AT&T Technologies. Discon brought a lawsuit, claiming in part that Nynex, Materiel, and NYC Co. had engaged in coordinated anticompetitive activities to remove Discon from the market. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim, but the court of appeals partially reversed, finding that Nynex’s decision to exclude one supplier for another without a pro-competitive justification supported Discon’s claim. Nynex appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Breyer, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 177,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.