Cusmano v. United States

How later courts describe this case

• considering whether a federal district court had jurisdiction over the declaration of Indian water rights on a reservation
• addressing how the Tribes could effect a transfer of the hunting and fishing rights it retained after termination
• claim that two firms expressly colluded in an attempt to monopolize would be one of oligopoly under Sec. 1 rather than monopoly under Sec. 2
• claim that two firms expressly colluded in an attempt to monopolize would be one of oligopoly under § 1 rather than monopoly under § 2
• “Defendant’s conduct must have been prompted by a malicious motive unmixed with any other and exclusively directed to injure and damage another.”
• "inextricably intertwined” injury found where boycott of plaintiff was alleged means of eliminating competition in relevant cable market and where plaintiff was most directly injured party
• “To the extent that plaintiff is alleging that defendants as a group attempted to or have monopolized the cable industry, this is a claim of oligopoly, and is not cognizable under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.”
• same facts and same result as Russo