Kay Electric Cooperative v. City of Newkirk
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.
When a city acts as a market participant it generally has to play by the same rules as everyone else. It can’t abuse its monopoly power or conspire to suppress competition. Except sometimes it can. If the city can show that its parent state authorized it to upend normal competition, to install instead a municipal monopoly, the city enjoys immunity from federal antitrust liability. The problem for the City of Newkirk in this case is that the state has done no such thing.
Newkirk and Kay Electric Cooperative both provide electricity to Oklahoma consumers. Traditionally,…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Parker v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- City of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- United States v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2013
- Auraria Student Housing at the Regency, LLC v. Campus Village Apartments, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2016
- North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2013
- SMILEDIRECTCLUB, LLC v. Tanja D. BattleCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2021
- Presque IsleColon & Rectal Surgery v. Highmark HealthDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2019
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.