Legal Opinion
Gold Cross Ambulance & Transfer v. City of Kansas City
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Decided April 26, 1983No. 82-1913PublishedCited by 81 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HEANEY, Circuit Judge.
The issue we face here is whether the City of Kansas City, the Metropolitan Ambulance Services Trust (MAST), and various other defendants1 violated the federal and state antitrust laws and the United States Constitution by implementing a single-operator ambulance system to provide all of the city’s emergency and nonemergeney service. We hold that Kansas City, MAST, and the consultants they retained are shielded from federal and state antitrust liability because they established the municipal ambulance system pursuant to state authorization and a clearly articulated and…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Perry v. SindermannSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Singleton v. WulffSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Parker v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Bates v. State Bar of ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by81 opinions
- Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit AuthoritySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Southern Disposal, Inc. v. Texas Waste ManagementCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1998
- Curtis Ambulance of Florida, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Shawnee, Kansas, and Medevac Midamerica, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1987
- Wanzer v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- Tri-State Rubbish, Inc. v. Waste Management, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1993
76 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.