Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Rice v. Norman Williams Co., 458 U.S. 654 (1982), was a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court involving the preemption of state law by the Sherman Act.The Supreme Court held, in a 9–0 decision, that the Sherman Act did not invalidate a California law prohibiting the importing of spirits not authorized by the brand owner.
The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 [1] (26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7) is a United States antitrust law which prescribes the rule of free competition among those engaged in commerce and consequently prohibits unfair monopolies.
A jury in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado found that Ski Co. maintained its monopoly through anticompetitive means in violation of the Sherman Act. [16] The District Court awarded Highlands $7,500,000 in treble damages, costs, attorneys' fees and issued a temporary injunction requiring revival of the All-Aspen ...
Apple allegedly violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by employing "a series of shapeshifting rules and restrictions in its App Store guidelines and developer agreements that would allow Apple to ...
"The general language of the Sherman Act should not be interpreted to prohibit anticompetitive actions by the States in their governmental capacities as sovereign regulators." [13] The Sherman Act was enacted to address the unlawful combination of private businesses. [14] "There is no suggestion of a purpose to restrain state action in the Act ...
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving antitrust law and civil procedure.Authored by Justice David Souter, it established that parallel conduct, absent evidence of agreement, is insufficient to sustain an antitrust action under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
In American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League, 560 U.S. 183 (2010), the Court refined the rule in Copperweld, holding that intra-enterprise agreements may be reviewed under §1 of the Sherman Act where they deprive the marketplace of independent centers of decision making, thus harming actual or potential competition. [5]
indispensable parties under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Albrecht v. Herald Co. 390 U.S. 145 (1968) minimum price agreements between wholesalers and franchisees unlawful under the Sherman Act: Avery v. Midland County: 390 U.S. 474 (1968) local government districts must conform to "one person, one vote" Ginsberg v. New York: 390 U.S ...