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.
Hostetter, in which the Court rejected a facial Sherman Act preemption challenge to a statute requiring that persons selling liquor to wholesalers affirm that the price charged was no higher than the lowest price at which sales were made anywhere in the United States during the previous month. Since the attack was a facial one, and the state ...
Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943), was a United States Supreme Court case on the scope of United States antitrust law.It held that actions taken by state governments were exempt from the scope of the Sherman Act.
"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 ...
United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 166 U.S. 290 (1897), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that the Sherman Act (which was an antitrust measure that prohibited anticompetitive behavior in commerce) applied to the railroad industry, even though the U.S. Congress had enacted a comprehensive regime of regulations for that industry.
The US Justice Department along with 16 states on Thursday filed an 88-page antitrust lawsuit against Apple for violating antitrust laws. Apple allegedly violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by ...
Because the Sherman Act does not prohibit unreasonable restraints of trade as such - but only restraints effected by a contract, combination, or conspiracy - it leaves untouched a single firm's anticompetitive conduct (short of threatened monopolization) that may be indistinguishable in economic effect from the conduct of two firms subject to ...
When the Supreme Court adopted the view that Congress enacted the Sherman Act as a "consumer welfare prescription", it did not define the meaning of the term, which has remained ambiguous. [5] The book's title is referenced in Amazon's Antitrust Paradox, a popular paper by Lina Khan who became Chair of the Federal Trade Commission. Her paper ...