| Verizon Communications v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued October 14, 2003 Decided January 13, 2004 |
||||||
| Full case name | Verizon Communications, Petitioner v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| Respondent's complaint alleging breach of an incumbent LEC's 1996 Act duty to share its network with competitors does not state a claim under §2 of the Sherman Act. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer | |||||
| Concurrence | Stevens, joined by Souter, Thomas | |||||
Verizon Communications v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, often shortened to Verizon v. Trinko, 540 U.S. 398 (2004), is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in the field of Antitrust law. It held that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 had not modified the framework of the Sherman Act, preserving claims that satisfy established antitrust standards without creating new claims that go beyond those standards. More importantly, it refused to extend the essential facilities doctrine beyond the facts of the controversial Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. case.