United States v. AMR Corporation
United States District Court for the District of Kansas
140 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (2011)
- Written by John Reeves, JD
Facts
From 1995 to 1997, several low-cost airline carriers began operating low-cost routes based in Dallas-Fort Worth. Up to this point, American Airlines (American) (defendant) had been the dominant carrier on these routes. In response, American drastically reduced its own fares for such routes. American also increased the number of routes it provided based in Dallas-Fort Worth. As a result, all of the low-cost carriers eventually ceased operations. After the low-cost carriers ceased operations, American raised the prices of the routes back to what they had originally been and cut the number of routes back to their original number. The United States (plaintiff) brought suit against American, AMR Corporation, and AMR Eagle Holding Company (defendants), alleging that these actions amounted to an unlawful predatory-pricing scheme. To demonstrate this, the United States employed a formula showing that American had lowered its prices below the company’s average total cost. This formula demonstrated that American had failed, in the short run, to maximize its profits. The government maintained that this was a satisfactory test of incremental cost. American and the other defendants moved for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Marten, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

