NYNEX Corp. v. Discon, Inc.
United States Supreme Court
525 U.S. 128 (1998)
- Written by Nicholas Decoster, JD
Facts
After the breakup of an existing monopoly on telephone 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
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Breyer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
