Court Opinion

ID: 9480773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:57:49.582954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:53.680320
License: Public Domain

ANDERSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I join Parts IV and V of Chief Judge Tjoflat’s opinion, in which he concludes that City Gas was not a monopolist in the wholesale market and that its refusal to deal did not trigger liability under the essential facilities doctrine or the intent test.
I also join subparts A. and B.l. of Part VII of Chief Judge Tjoflat’s opinion, in which he concludes that state action immunity would shield City Gas with respect to the territorial agreement. I also join Judge Johnson’s dissent on the issue of state action immunity with respect to the territorial agreement.