Boddicker v. Arizona State Dental Ass'n
| Decision Date | 24 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-5730,80-5730 |
| Citation | 680 F.2d 66 |
| Parties | 1982-2 Trade Cases 64,812 Vernon S. BODDICKER, Richard W. Peay, Hugh L. Thompson, and Dwight G. Hudson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ARIZONA STATE DENTAL ASSOCIATION, an Arizona Non-Profit Corporation; Central Arizona Dental Society, an Arizona Non-Profit Corporation; and American Dental Association, an Illinois Non-Profit Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Carl W. Divelbiss, Phoenix, Ariz., Erhard, Cox & Ruebel, P.C., Dallas, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Peter M. Sfikas, Chicago, Ill., David L. White, Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, Phoenix, Ariz., argued, for defendants-appellees; Peterson, Ross, Schloerb & Seidel, Chicago, Ill., on brief.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
Before PREGERSON and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges, and ORRICK, District Judge. *
Appellants, plaintiffs below, challenged the membership links between the defendant organizations on antitrust grounds. Trial was to the court, and after appellants had presented their case, the court granted appellees' motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) and entered judgment against appellants. We affirm.
(I) The district court rejected appellants' contention that the membership links between the defendant organizations constituted a per se illegal tying arrangement. This conclusion was correct. First of all, since appellants themselves admit that the American Dental Association ("ADA") is a unique organization to which no other is comparable, there would appear to be no market in the "tied product"-ADA memberships-for the challenged membership requirements to restrain. Cf. Community Builders, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 652 F.2d 823, 830 (9th Cir. 1981) (). Secondly, the relationship of the defendant organizations strongly suggests that membership in the local and state groups cannot be characterized as a product or service distinct from ADA membership. Finally, even if ADA membership is a product distinct from membership in the ADA's constituent and component societies, the latter derive no economic benefit from sales of ADA memberships, the alleged "tied product," so that no per se illegal tying arrangement can be found. Moore v. Jas. H. Matthews...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Woodard v. Colorado Springs Bd. of Realtors, Inc.
...that in such circumstances there can be no separate markets for "MLS services" and "Board memberships." Cf. Boddicker v. Arizona State Dental Association, 680 F.2d 66 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 837, 103 S.Ct. 83, 74 L.Ed.2d 79 (1982). More significantly, however, the trial court......
-
Indiana Federation of Dentists v. F.T.C.
...effect among dentists as to their policy of dealing with group dental health care insurers. Accord Boddicker v. Arizona State Dental Ass'n, 680 F.2d 66, 68 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 837, 103 S.Ct. 83, 74 L.Ed.2d 79 (1982) (no arguments presented to demonstrate an adverse effect on ......
-
Mellon v. Cessna Aircraft Co.
...market, he cannot show that any tying by Cessna had a substantial impact in the tied market. Cessna cites Boddicker v. Arizona State Dental Association, 680 F.2d 66, 67 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 837, 103 S.Ct. 83, 74 L.Ed.2d 79 (1982), as well as a number of other cases in support ......
-
U.S. v. Cockrum, 94-50035
... ... ineffective assistance of counsel because his state counsel withdrew an appeal of a state firearm case without ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...461 U.S. 731 (1983), 94 Bobrick Washroom Equip. v. Santana Prods., 401 F.3d 120 (3d Cir. 2005), 145 Boddicker v. Ariz. State Dental Ass’n, 680 F.2d 66 (9th Cir. 1982), 10 Bowers v. NCAA, 9 F. Supp. 2d 460 (D.N.J. 1998), 28 Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litig., In re , 186 F.3d 781......
-
Overview of Antitrust Statutes and Government Enforcement Regimes that Affect Associations
...Act, makes it unlawful for a seller “to discriminate in price between different 15. See, e.g ., Boddicker v. Ariz. State Dental Ass’n, 680 F.2d 66, 67@68 (9th Cir. 1982) (affirming trial court’s findings that membership requirements of dental association did not harm competition and that th......