Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
In an antitrust action claiming that defendant-hospital's refusal to deal with nephrologists other than those in its in-house practice, including plaintiff, amounted to the monopolization, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where 1) the hospital had no antitrust duty to share its facilities with plaintiff at the expense of its own nephrology practice; and 2) in demanding access to defendant's facilities, plaintiff sought to share the hospital's putative monopoly.
Filed September 30, 2009
Opinion by Judge Hartz
Jack Shelton, Wichita, KS