Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Exclusive Jurisdiction Doctrines. Although this court declines to decide whether the state-action doctrine applies to state antitrust claims, it seems clear that it does apply, contrary to the district court’s holding. Aplt.App. 3942-43. Oklahoma’s antitrust law is to “be interpreted in a manner consistent with federal antitrust law ... and the case law applicable thereto.” Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 79, § 212; see also Teleco, Inc. 587 P.2d at 1362; Oakridge Investments, Inc. v. S. Energy Homes, Inc., 719 P.2d 848, 850 (Okla.Ct. App.1986). Nothing suggests that Oklahoma would reject the state-action doctrine which we have applied to federal antitrust claims in similar circumstances. See Trigen Oklahoma City Energy Corp. v. Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co., 244 F.3d 1220, 1225-1226 (10th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); S. Disposal, Inc. v. Tex. Waste Mgmt., 161 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that interpretation of regulation by va that conflicted with plain meaning of regulation not entitled to deference (B) recognizing oklahomas policy of allowing regulation instead of competition in electricity sales (C) recognizing oklahomas policy of allowing regulation instead of competition in waste disposal services (D) holding that pma process is not specific regulation because the requirements are not contained in formal regulation (E) recognizing  1857a is a clear expression of oklahomas policy favoring arbitration agreements
Output (English): holding that pma process is not specific regulation because the requirements are not contained in formal regulation