Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
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 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 ...
American antitrust law formally began in 1890 with the U.S. Congress's passage of the Sherman Act, although a few U.S. states had passed local antitrust laws during the preceding year. [13] Using broad and general terms, the Sherman Act outlawed "monopoliz[ation]" and "every contract, combination ... or conspiracy in restraint of trade". [14]
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 ...
It held that actions taken by state governments were exempt from the scope of the Sherman Act. The case was an appeal from a decree of a district court of three judges enjoining the enforcement, against the appellee, of a marketing program adopted pursuant to the California Agricultural Prorate Act. The case led to the Parker immunity doctrine ...
The rule of reason is a legal doctrine used to interpret the Sherman Antitrust Act, one of the cornerstones of United States antitrust law.While some actions like price-fixing are considered illegal per se, other actions, such as possession of a monopoly, must be analyzed under the rule of reason and are only considered illegal when their effect is to unreasonably restrain trade.
South-Eastern Underwriters Association, 322 U.S. 533 (1944), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Sherman Act, the federal antitrust statute, applied to insurance. To reach this decision, the Court held that insurance could be regulated by the United States Congress under the Commerce Clause , overturning Paul v.