Hospital Building Company v. Trustees of Rex Hospital

PETITIONER: Hospital Building Company
RESPONDENT: Trustees of Rex Hospital
LOCATION: North Carolina State Capitol

DOCKET NO.: 74-1452
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1975-1981)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

CITATION: 425 US 738 (1976)
ARGUED: Feb 25, 1976
DECIDED: May 24, 1976

ADVOCATES:
Carl Weissburg - for Federation of American Hospitals, amicus curiae
John K. Train III -
Lyle R. Mink - for Federation of American Hospitals, amicus curiae
Ray S. Bolze - for respondents

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Hospital Building Company v. Trustees of Rex Hospital

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - February 25, 1976 in Hospital Building Company v. Trustees of Rex Hospital

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - May 24, 1976 in Hospital Building Company v. Trustees of Rex Hospital

Warren E. Burger:

The judgment and the opinion of the court in 74-1452 Hospital Building Company against the Trustees of Rex Hospital will be announced by Mr. Justice Marshall.

Thurgood Marshall:

This is case is here on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The petitioner hospital brought a Sherman Act action alleging that the respondents had conspired to block the expansion and relocation of the petitioner's hospital for purposes of monopolizing the business of providing hospital services in Raleigh North Carolina.

In order to establish the requisite nexus within the state commerce the petitioner alleged that a substantial portion of its medicine and supplies came from out of state, a large portion of its revenues came from out of state insurance companies.

The brand expansion will largely financed through out of state lenders and that all these interstate involvements were being adversely affected by the respondent's conduct.

Nevertheless, the District Court dismissed the action on the pleadings on the ground that the provision of hospital services is essentially a local business and respondent's conduct only indirectly and insubstantially affected interstate commerce.

The Court of Appeals affirmed in an opinion filed with the clerk we reverse.

While there may have been no allegations that respondent intended to affect interstate commerce and no allegations that the alleged conduct affected market price or forced petitioners out of state suppliers to go out of business.

Our decisions indicate that the requisite nexus with interstate commerce under the Sherman Act is established as long as the conduct in question as a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

The complaint in this case fairly read, adequately alleges such an effect, and therefore the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.