The Oyez Project: Economic Activity Issues - Antitrust Decisions http://www.oyez.org/issues/economic-activity/antitrust/ U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us 324 Liquor Corp. v. Duffy <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_84_2022/ Abbott Labs. v. Portland Retail Druggists <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_74_1274/ Albrecht v. Herald Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_43/ Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_87_157/ American Medical Assn. v. Ftc <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_1690/ American Soc. Of M. E.'s v. Hydrolevel Corp. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_1765/ Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_419/ Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1984/1984_84_510/ Associated General Contractors v. Carpenters <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_334/ Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co. <p>Must a competitor alleging an "antitrust injury" under the Clayton Act prove predatory intent in addition to showing that the defendant conspired to fix prices in violation of the Sherman Act?</p><p>Yes. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that it was necessary to prove predatory intent in order for a competitor to establish a private cause of action under the Clayton Act. According to Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.'s majority opinion, the standard for competitors is different than for affiliated dealers or consumers because competitors would only bring suit when the low prices that resulted from the price-fixing scheme hurt their business. As long as these prices are not predatory, however, they are actually good for consumers and increase competition. Allowing competitors to sue without showing predatory intent would therefore decrease competition, exactly the opposite of the intent of the Sherman and Clayton Acts.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1668/ Bankamerica Corp. v. United States <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_1487/ Black v. Magnolia Liquor Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1957/1957_14/ Blue Shield Of Virginia v. Mccready <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_81_225/ Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Cbs <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_1578/ Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_466/ Brown v. Pro Football Inc. <p>Are several employers immune from a union anti-trust suit when these employers, bargaining together, unilaterally impose terms on the union if the collective bargaining process reaches an impasse?</p><p>Yes. In affirming the Court of Appeals decision, the Supreme Court held that federal labor laws protect professional football franchises from anti-trust actions brought by their players when those franchises unilaterally impose terms after the collective bargaining process breaks down. Labor laws stabilize, encourage, and protect the collective bargaining process. When that process breaks down, labor laws provide adequate remedies. Employee suits under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, by contrast, might undermine the integrity of collective bargaining and preempt unnecessarily the labor laws.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_95_388/ Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_75_904/ Business Electronics v. Sharp Electronics <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_85_1910/ California Dental Association v. Federal Trade Commission <p>Does the Federal Trade Commission have jurisdiction over the California Dental Association (CDA), a nonprofit professional association? Does an abbreviated rule-of-reason analysis suffice to justify the conclusion that the CDA's advertising restrictions violated the Sherman and Federal Trade Commission Act?</p><p>Yes and no. In an opinion delivered by Justice David H. Souter, the Court held that the FTC's jurisdiction extends to associations like the CDA, which provide substantial economic benefit to their for-profit members, but that because the disputed anti-competitive efforts were not obvious, more than the abbreviated rule-of-reason analysis, performed in this case, was required. Justice Souter wrote for the Court that, "[n]onprofit entities organized on behalf of for-profit members have the same capacity... to engage in unfair methods of competition or unfair and deceptive acts." Justice Souter, however, concluded that the Court of Appeals should have used a less-abbreviated standard of review to determine whether the FTC's invalidation of the CDA's rules was justified.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1998/1998_97_1625/ California Liquor Dealers v. Midcal Aluminum <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1979/1979_79_97/ California Transport v. Trucking Unlimited <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_92/ Cantor v. Detroit Edison Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_75_122/ Carnation Co. v. Pacific Conference <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_20/ Case-Swayne Co. v. Sunkist Growers <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_66/ Citizen Publishing Co. v. U.S. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_243/ Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1990/1990_89_1671/ Community Communications Co., v. Boulder <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_1350/ Continental Co. v. Union Carbide <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_304/ Continental T. V., Inc. v. Gte Sylvania Inc. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_76_15/ Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_82_1260/ Denver & R. G. W. R. Co. v. U.S. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_305/ Denver Stock Yard v. Livestock Assn. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1957/1957_106/ Eastern R. Conf. v. Noerr Motors <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_50/ Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1029/ F. Hoffman-LaRoche, Ltd. v. Empagran S.A. <p>Under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982, do Sherman Act claims apply to the effects of foreign price-fixing schemes if those schemes do not have domestic effects?</p><p>No. The Court unanimously ruled that Congress' intent in passing the FTAIA was to prevent American courts from interfering in foreign commerce. Congress made an exception for foreign commerce that affected domestic commerce, but the exception should not be read as a general prohibition against price-fixing in all parts of the world. In the majority opinion (Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia filed a separate opinion concurring in judgment), Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote, "Why should American law supplant, for example, Canada's or Great Britain's or Japan's own determination about how best to protect (their own) customers from anticompetitive conduct engaged in" by their own companies?</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_724/ F. T. C. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1959/1959_389/ F. T. C. v. Mandel Brothers <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_234/ F. T. C. v. National Lead Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_63/ F. T. C. v. Simplicity Pattern Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_406/ F. T. C. v. Standard Oil Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1957/1957_24/ Fall City Industries v. Vanco Beverage <p>Is the meeting-competition defense of section 2(b) of the Clayton Act available only if the defendant sets its lower price on customer-by-customer basis and creates the price discrimination by lowering rather than by raising prices?</p><p>No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the Court held that section 2(b) is not so inflexible. The Court held that the meeting-competition defense required a seller at least to show the existence of facts that would lead a reasonable and prudent person to believe that the seller's lower price would meet the equally low price of a competitor and required the seller to demonstrate that its lower price was a good faith response to a competitor's low price. "Falls City contends that it has established its meeting-competition defense as a matter of law. In the absence of further findings, we do not agree," wrote Justice Blackmun.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_1271/ Federal Trade Comm'n v. Broch & Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_74/ Federal Trade Comm'n v. Broch & Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1959/1959_61/ Federal Trade Comm'n v. Sun Oil Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_56/ Federal Trade Commission v. Ticor Title Insurance Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_72/ First Nat. Bank v. Cities Service <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_23/ Fisher v. Berkeley <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1538/ Flood v. Kuhn <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_71_32/ Fortner Enterprises v. U.S. Steel <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_306/ Ftc v. Borden Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_106/ Ftc v. Brown Shoe Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_118/ Ftc v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_62/ Ftc v. Consolidated Foods <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_422/ Ftc v. Fred Meyer, Inc. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_27/ Ftc v. Indiana Federation Of Dentists <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1809/ Ftc v. Jantzen, Inc. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_310/ Ftc v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_70/ Ftc v. Texaco <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_24/ Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1974/1974_74_70/ Gordon v. New York Stock Exchange <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1974/1974_74_304/ Great A & P Tea Co. v. Ftc <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_654/ Greyhound Corp. v. Mt. Hood Stages, Inc. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_77_598/ Group Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Royal Drug Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_952/ Gulf Oil Corp. v. Copp Paving Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1974/1974_73_1012/ Hallie v. Eau Claire <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1984/1984_82_1832/ Hanover Shoe v. United Shoe Mach. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_335/ Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California <p>First, did the plaintiffs sufficiently allege "boycotts," as used in the McCarran-Ferguson Act, Section 3(b)? Second, did international comity counsel against exercising Sherman Act jurisdiction over the conduct of the London-based defendants?</p><p>Yes to the first; no to the second. The Court, speaking through Justice Antonin Scalia, held that a boycott exists when, in order to coerce a target into certain terms on one transaction, parties refuse to engage in other, unrelated transactions with the target. On most counts, the plaintiffs' allegations, construed favorably, described boycotts. Justice David H. Souter wrote for the Court on jurisdiction over foreign conduct, holding that it was appropriate in this case because there is no true conflict between domestic and foreign law. That is, because the London reinsurers can comply with both British law and the Sherman Act, international comity does not counsel against exercising subject matter jurisdiction in this case.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1111/ Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_49/ Hoover v. Ronwin <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_82_1474/ Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_74_1452/ Hughes Tool Co. v. Trans World Airlines <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1972/1972_71_827/ Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_76_404/ Illinois Tool Works v. Independent Ink <p>Under the Sherman Act, when the license to use a patented product is tied to a customer's agreement to use a separate non-patented product, is it assumed that the manufacturer of the patented product has the ability to raise prices above market rates?</p><p>No. The Supreme Court unanimously decided that the burden was on the party claiming an anti-trust violation to show that the defendant had the power to raise prices above market rates. Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the opinion, rejected the rule used in <em>International Salt Company v. United States</em>, 332 U.S. 392, that the assumption should be made that such power existed. Stevens wrote, "The question presented to us today is whether the presumption of market power in a patented product should survive as a matter of antitrust law despite its demise in patent law. We conclude that the mere fact that a tying product is patented does not support such a presumption."</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_1329/ J. Truett Payne Co. v. Chrysler Motors Corp. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_79_1944/ Jefferson County Pharm. Assn. v. Abbott Labs. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_827/ Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_82_1031/ Kansas v. Utilicorp United Inc. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_2109/ Kelly v. Kosuga <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_267/ Klor's v. Broadway-Hale Stores <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_76/ Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_864/ Leh v. General Petroleum Corp. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_4/ Luckenbach Steamship Co., Inc. v. United States <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1959/1959_848/ Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_83_2004/ Mclain v. Real Estate Bd. Of New Orleans <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1979/1979_78_1501/ Melrose Distillers v. United States <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_404/ Michigan Citizens for Independent Press v. Thornburgh <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1640/ Minnesota Mining v. N. J. Wood Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_291/ Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_82_914/ Nashville Milk Co. v. Carnation Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1957/1957_67/ National Broiler Marketing Assn. v. U.S. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_77_117/ National Gerimedical Hospital v. Blue Cross <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_80_802/ National Soc. Of Professional Engineers v. U.S. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1767/ Ncaa v. Board Of Regents Of Uni v. Of Okla. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_83_271/ Northern Pac. R. Co. v. United States <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1957/1957_59/ Northwest Stationers v. Pacific Stationery <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1984/1984_83_1368/ Nynex Corp. v. Discon, Inc. <p>Does the antitrust rule outlawing group boycotts apply to a single buyer's decision to buy from one company over another?</p><p>No. In a unanimous decision, announced by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court ruled the group boycott rule does not apply to claims with a single buyer and a single supplier. In the competitive environment antitrust laws seek to encourage, NYNEX had the freedom to switch its vendor. As for the conspiracy to monopolize claim, the Court remanded the case to provide Discon a chance to show that NYNEX agreements possibly harmed the competitive process.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1998/1998_96_1570/ Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1972/1972_71_991/ Patrick v. Burget <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_1145/ Perkins v. Standard Oil Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_624/ Perma Mufflers v. Int'l Parts Corp. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_733/ Pfizer Inc. v. India <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_749/ Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_45/ Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1043/ Radiant Burners v. Peoples Gas Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_73/ Radovich v. Nat. Football League <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_94/ Reiter v. Sonotone Corp. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_78_690/ Ricci v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1972/1972_71_858/ Safeway Stores, Inc., v. Vance <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1957/1957_69/ Silver v. New York Stock Exchange <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_150/ Simpson v. Union Oil Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_87/ Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conf. v. U.S. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1984/1984_82_1922/ Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. Mcquillan Et Vir, Dba Sorboturf Enterprises <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_10/ Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier Tariff Bur. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_21/ St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Barry <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_77_240/ State Oil Co. v. Khan <p>Is the setting of maximum prices always ("per se") a violation of the Sherman Act's prohibition on price fixing?</p><p>No. In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court overturned the <i>Albrecht</i> decision. The Court noted that antitrust cases are typically decided by weighing the costs and benefits of restrictions in each individual case instead of by per se rules as in <i>Albrecht</i>. Also, there was significant precedent contradicting the assertion that all trade restrictions are illegal, and there was evidence that the effects of price-fixing are not as detrimental as the Court thought at the time of <i>Albrecht</i>.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1997/1997_96_871/ Summit Health, Ltd. v. Pinhas <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1990/1990_89_1679/ Sunkist v. Winckler & Smith Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_241/ Tampa Electric Co. v. Nashville Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_87/ Texaco Inc. v. Dagher <p>Does Section 1 of the Sherman Act always prohibit a lawful joint venture from setting the prices at which its goods will be sold?</p><p>No. In an 8-0 decision (Justice Alito not participating), the Court ruled that the per se rule against price-fixing should not be applied to price-setting by joint ventures. The opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas held that "though Equilon's pricing policy may be price fixing in a literal sense, it is not price fixing in the antitrust sense." The Court distinguished 'horizontal' price-fixing schemes between competitors, which are per se illegal, from the "internal pricing decisions of a legitimate joint venture," which are not.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_805/ Texaco, Inc. v. Hasbrouck <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_87_2048/ Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_79_1144/ Theatre Enterprises v. Paramount <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1953/1953_19/ U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Nat. Gypsum Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_11/ U.S. Steel Corp. v. Fortner Enterprises <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_75_853/ U.S. v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_25/ U.S. v. National Assn. Securities Dealers <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1974/1974_73_1701/ U.S. v. Phosphate Export Assn. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_29/ Union Labor Life Ins. Co. v. Pireno <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_81_389/ United States v. Atlantic Rfg. Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_210/ United States v. Borden Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_439/ United States v. Boston & M. R. Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_232/ United States v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_72/ United States v. Container Corp. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_27/ United States v. Du Pont & Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_3_2/ United States v. du Pont & Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1955/1955_5/ United States v. General Motors <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_46/ United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1972/1972_71_666/ United States v. Grinnell Corp. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_73/ United States v. Loew's Inc. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_42/ United States v. Mckesson & Robbins <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1955/1955_448/ United States v. National Dairy Corp. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_18/ United States v. Parke, Davis & Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1959/1959_20/ United States v. R. C. A. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_54/ United States v. Sealy, Inc. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_9/ United States v. Singer Mfg. Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_438/ United States v. Topco Associates <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_82/ United States v. United Shoe Corp. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_597/ United States v. United States Gypsum Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1560/ United States v. Ward Baking Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_101/ United States v. Wise <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_488/ USPS v. Flamingo Industries <p>Can the U.S. Postal Service be sued under federal antitrust laws?</p><p>No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that the U.S. Postal Service cannot be sued under antitrust laws. The Court acknowledged the Postal Reorganization Act may waive the Postal Service's immunity from suit. However, federal antitrust laws (the Sherman Act, for example) do not allow the federal government - of which the Postal Service is a part - to be sued.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_02_1290/ Utah Pie Co. v. Continental Baking <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_18/ Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_76_156/ Verizon v. Trinko, LLP <p>When a company fails to meet its duty to share its network with competitors under the Telecommunications Act, can it be sued under the Sherman Act?</p><p>No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the complaint alleging breach of Verizon's Telecommunication Act duties to share its network with competitors did not state a claim under the Sherman Act. The Court reasoned that the 1996 act did not alter antitrust law or add new claims and that Verizon did not violate preexisting antitrust standards. The justices declined to add a new claim by making an exception to the rule that businesses need not aid competitors.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_02_682/ Viking Theatre v. Paramount Film <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_481/ Volvo Trucks North America v. Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc. <p>Can a seller be held liable for discriminatory pricing under the Robinson-Patman Act if the purchaser loses profits to competitors that do not purchase from the seller, but does not lose profits to any competitor that "receives the benefit of" the price discrimination?</p><p>No. In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that for a manufacturer to be liable under the RPA, dealers must be in actual competition with each other. The opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg held that Volvo's pricing decisions did not fall under the Act, because "in none of the discrete instances on which Reeder relied did Reeder compete with beneficiaries of the alleged discrimination <em>for the same customer</em>." In declining to interpret the RPA more expansively, the Court hoped to maintain the "broader policies of the antitrust laws," which are designed to protect competition itself rather than individual competitors. Justice Stevens wrote a dissent, which Justice Thomas joined.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_905/ Walker, Inc. v. Food Machinery <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_13/ White Motor Co. v. United States <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_54/ Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_80/