Cusmano v. United States

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 | same facts and same result as Russo | diving accident in national park | diving accident in national park