October Term 2006 · Docket 05-1126
Does parallel market behavior prove a conspiracy?
Competitors dispute whether simple market parallelism proves a Sherman Act violation.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Barnett argued the lower court decision allows weak claims to survive.
Kellogg argued the rules do not require detailed factual pleading.
richards argued the complaint meets the necessary legal threshold.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 3-23 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 3-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 49-37 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 49-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-39 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 43-51 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 43-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 33-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 33-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 49-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-19
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the legal standard for dismissing antitrust claims.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 3-23 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 3-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 49-37 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 49-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-15
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 27, 2006.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
What each side wants
Bell Atlantic seeks dismissal of the antitrust claim.
Twombly seeks to keep the complaint alive for trial.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 3-23 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 3-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 49-37 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 49-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-15
What each side says
Bell Atlantic argues parallel action alone does not prove agreement.
Twombly argues simple factual statements satisfy pleading rules.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 3-23 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 3-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 49-37 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 49-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-15
What the justices asked
Justice Stevens asked if the complaint alleges a specific contract.
Justice Breyer asked if minimal injury claims survive dismissal motions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-39 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 43-51 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 43-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 33-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 33-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 49-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-19
Why it matters
This standard defines how easily antitrust suits reach trial.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 3-23 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 3-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 49-37 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 49-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-15
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-39 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 43-51 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 43-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 33-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 33-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 49-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-19
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 3-23 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 3-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 49-37 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 49-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 3-23 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 3-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 49-37 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 49-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-15
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.