Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.

holding that to prove a Rule of Reason violation under section 1 of the Sherman Act, a plaintiff must allege an anticompetitive effect | reversing award of damages where defendant’s proposed jury instruction failed to accurately state controlling legal principle and defendant failed to raise issue about the correct legal principle on appeal | "Although juries are ... accorded great discretion in determining the amount of damage awards, damages must be proved; they must not be speculative.” | "Thus, the plaintiff must allege, not only an injury to himself, but an injury to the market as well." | “Thus, the plaintiff must allege, not only an injury to himself, but an injury to the market as well.” | “[i]t is axiomatic that the complaint may not be amended by the briefs in opposition to a motion to dismiss” | complaint may not be amended by the opposition briefs; on a motion to dismiss, consideration is limited to the pleadings | it is “axiomatic that the complaint may not be amended by the briefs in opposition to a motion to dismiss.” | complaint may not be amended by briefs in opposition to a motion to dismiss | reversed and remanded for new trial because punitive damages of $500,-000.00 excessive | relevant market is market for “haulaway services in Chicago area” | relevant market is market for "haulaway services in Chicago area"