Head-to-head
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, et al., Petitioners v. Mosaic Health, Inc., et al. vs. Apple Inc., Petitioner v. Epic Games, Inc. vs. James Tindall, Petitioner v. United States
Business and Regulation cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
The matchup
Docket 25-1070AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, et al., Petitioners v. Mosaic Health, Inc., et al.Before argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-1311Apple Inc., Petitioner v. Epic Games, Inc.Before argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-1412James Tindall, Petitioner v. United StatesBefore argumentOctober Term 2025
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Business and Regulation
- Why compared
- Reviewed Business and Regulation tags connect these current-term public cases.
Questions presented
- AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, et al., Petitioners v. Mosaic Health, Inc., et al.
- 1. Whether Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), which bars antitrust claims by indirect purchasers and sellers, applies to a claim of “lost profit” damages based on indirect purchases or sales that were not made due to the alleged conspiracy? 2. Whether the allegation that businesses had an “opportunity to conspire,” such as through joint lobbying and participation in a trade association, plausibly suggests an antitrust conspiracy?
- Apple Inc., Petitioner v. Epic Games, Inc.
- 1. Whether a court may hold a party in civil contempt based on a violation of an injunction's "spirit" where the injunction is silent as to the conduct upon which contempt is based, as the Ninth Circuit holds; or, instead, whether a court must ground a finding of civil contempt on the violation of an order that clearly and unambiguously proscribes the precise conduct at issue, as other circuits hold. 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit has properly created an "antitrust" or "competition" exception to Trump v. CASA, Inc ., 606 U.S. 831 (2025), and the longstanding equitable principles on which CASA rests, or otherwise disregarded CASA 's limits.
- James Tindall, Petitioner v. United States
- 1. Whether Respondent’s multi-year possession, control and use of Petitioner’s property is a taking sufficient to trigger the payment of “just compensation”, as required by the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? 2. Whether the lower courts properly applied the doctrines of res judicata and claim preclusion when they ignored the two different and non-overlapping sets of transactional facts as clearly identified in Petitioner’s Amended 2025 Complaint (the first set of facts ending on September 12, 2023, and the second set of facts beginning on September 13, 2023) when determining if the lower court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1491(a)(1)? 3. Whether the lower courts properly applied the doctrines of res judicata and claim preclusion when both of the lower courts failed to correctly identify Petitioner’s property interests taken by Respondent, failed to identify when Petitioner’s property interests were taken and continue to be taken by Respondent and failed to identify when Respondent continues to breach the implied contract between the parties, which are necessary predicates to the legal conclusions reached by the lower courts? 4. Whether the lower courts properly applied Due Process, as required by the Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, when they failed to even identify the standard to be applied?
Go deeper
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.