| 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 | |
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.
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.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search