Cases by Issue - Antitrust

Texaco Inc. v. Dagher

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:45:16 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

04-805

Petitioner

Shell Oil Company

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fouad N. Dagher, et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Shell Oil Co. v. Dagher, No. 04-814

Heard By

Roberts Court (2005-2006)

Decided By

Roberts Court (2006-2009)

Opinion

547 U.S. ___ (2006)

Granted

Monday, June 27, 2005

Argued

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Decided

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Advocates

Jeffrey P. Minear (argued the cause for Petitioners)

Glen D. Nager (argued the cause for Petitioners)

Joseph Michaelangelo Alioto (argued the cause for Respondents)

Facts of the Case

In 1998, Texaco and Shell Oil agreed to stop competing for the U.S. oil market. The two companies formed a joint venture, Equilon Enterprises, which would manage the refining and marketing of gasoline in the western United States. The joint venture was charged with setting prices for Texaco and Shell gasoline, which would be sold under the original brand names. When Equilon set the same price for both brands, Dagher and other service station owners sued under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, alleging that Equilon was engaging in illegal price-fixing. The dispute turned on whether Equilon's actions fell under the Sherman Act's per se rule against price-fixing, under which all such instances of price-fixing by joint ventures would be illegal without regard to the specific harm caused in any particular case. The District Court granted summary judgment for Texaco, holding that the per se rule did not apply to the price-setting engaged in by Equilon. The District Judge reasoned that all enterprises, including joint ventures, must eventually set prices for their products. Therefore Equilon was merely engaged in a normal business practice, not the type of unreasonable, anticompetitive price- fixing that would run afoul of the Supreme Court's non-literal interpretation of the Sherman Act. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that Equilon's actions constituted price-fixing under the Sherman Act's per se rule and therefore could not be legal.

Question

Does Section 1 of the Sherman Act always prohibit a lawful joint venture from setting the prices at which its goods will be sold?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Texaco Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

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.

Illinois Tool Works v. Independent Ink

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:45:27 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

04-1329

Petitioner

Illinois Tool Works Inc., et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Independent Ink, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Roberts Court (2005-2006)

Decided By

Roberts Court (2006-2009)

Opinion

547 U.S. ___ (2006)

Granted

Monday, June 20, 2005

Argued

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Decided

Wednesday, March 1, 2006

Advocates

Andrew J. Pincus (argued the cause for Petitioners)

Kathleen M. Sullivan (argued the cause for Respondent)

Thomas G. Hungar (argued the cause for Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Independent Ink manufactured printing ink that was compatible with the printheads manufactured by (and patented by) Trident, a company owned by Illinois Tool Works. Trident, however, required that anyone who used their printheads also use their ink, which was not patented. Independent Ink brought suit in federal district court under the Sherman Act, which forbids companies from tying a license to use one product (in this case Trident's printheads) to a customer's agreement to use another product (Trident's ink). The district court ruled in favor of Trident, finding that Independent Ink had failed to show that Trident's control of the printhead allowed them to raise prices above the competitive market rate. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, however, finding that when the product for which a license is granted is under patent, the ability to raise prices of that product above market rates must be assumed, and the burden is on the defendant to show that such power did not exist.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Illinois Tool Works, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

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 International Salt Company v. United States, 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."

Volvo Trucks North America v. Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:57 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

04-905

Petitioner

Volvo Trucks North America, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Roberts Court (2005-2006)

Decided By

Roberts Court (2005-2006)

Opinion

546 U.S. ___ (2006)

Granted

Monday, March 7, 2005

Argued

Monday, October 31, 2005

Decided

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Advocates

Roy T. Englert, Jr. (argued the cause for Petitioner)

Carter G. Phillips (argued the cause for Respondent)

Thomas G. Hungar (argued the cause for Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Reeder, a Volvo truck dealership, sued Volvo for violating the Robinson-Patman Act (RPA), which prohibits forms of discriminatory pricing that reduce competition. When retail customers take bids from dealers such as Reeder, the dealers ask manufacturers for price concessions, which dealers factor into their bids. Reeder accused Volvo of offering better price concessions to other Volvo dealers bidding for different customers. Reeder cited four instances in which it had received a comparatively low concession from Volvo, but it claimed that its losses due to discriminatory pricing went beyond those four instances. District Court allowed the case to go to a jury, and the jury awarded damages to Reeder. On appeal, Volvo argued that no competition was present, as would be required by the RPA, because Reeder was not actually bidding against the other Volvo dealers that allegedly got favorable concessions. The Eighth Circuit disagreed, ruling that the Volvo dealers - though they did not bid against each other - "competed at the same functional level." Volvo's price discrimination would therefore fall under the RPA.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Volvo Trucks North America, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Robinson-Patman

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 for the same customer." 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.

F. Hoffman-LaRoche, Ltd. v. Empagran S.A.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

03-724

Petitioner

F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Empagran S.A., et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

542 U.S. 155 (2004)

Granted

Monday, December 15, 2003

Argued

Monday, April 26, 2004

Decided

Monday, June 14, 2004

Advocates

R. Hewitt Pate, III (argued the cause for Petitioners, on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae)

Stephen M. Shapiro (argued the cause for Petitioners)

Thomas C. Goldstein (argued the cause for Respondents)

Facts of the Case

Under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982 (FTAIA), the Sherman Act (which regulates monopolies and attempts to unfairly raise prices) does not apply to foreign commerce unless that commerce significantly harms domestic commerce, American imports, or American exporters. In this case, several companies that purchase and resell vitamins sued several vitamin manufacturers for illegal attempts to raise prices, both within the United States and in foreign countries. The manufacturers asked the district judge to dismiss several of the vitamin purchasers from the case because they only did business in other countries and, the manufacturers argued, could therefore not bring claims under the Sherman Act. The purchasers countered that the foreign price-fixing attempts were linked to the domestic attempts and could therefore be heard under the exception to the FTAIA. The district court sided with the manufacturers. On appeal, a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed, finding that the price fixing schemes were independent of each other but that Congress' intent had been to prevent price-fixing both at home and abroad, and that even the foreign claims could therefore be brought under the exception to the FTAIA.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for F. Hoffman-LaRoche, Ltd., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 6

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?

USPS v. Flamingo Industries

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:50 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

02-1290

Petitioner

United States Postal Service

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Flamingo Industries (USA) Ltd., et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

540 U.S. 736 (2004)

Granted

Tuesday, May 27, 2003

Argued

Monday, December 1, 2003

Decided

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (argued the cause for Petitioner)

Harold J. Krent (argued the cause for Respondents)

Facts of the Case

When the U.S. Postal Service ended its mail-sack contract with Flamingo Industries, Flamingo sued in U.S. district court. Flamingo claimed the Postal Service declared a "fake emergency in the supply of mail sacks" so it could give no-bid contracts to cheaper foreign manufacturers without allowing U.S. companies to compete for them. Flamingo claimed this violated federal antitrust laws (among other charges). The district court dismissed the antitrust claim reasoning that the federal government is protected by sovereign immunity. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed on the antitrust immunity count. It ruled that the 1970 Postal Reorganization Act waived the Postal Service's sovereign immunity and that it could be sued under federal antitrust laws as a "person."

Question

Can the U.S. Postal Service be sued under federal antitrust laws?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for USPS, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

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.

Verizon v. Trinko, LLP

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:34 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

02-682

Petitioner

Verizon Communications Inc.

Respondent

Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

540 U.S. 398 (2004)

Granted

Monday, March 10, 2003

Argued

Tuesday, October 14, 2003

Decided

Tuesday, January 13, 2004

Advocates

Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. (argued the cause for Respondent)

Richard G. Taranto (argued the cause for Petitioner)

Theodore B. Olson (argued the cause for Petitioner, on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

Curtis Trinko was an AT&T; customer but received service on lines owned by Verizon, which AT&T; was permitted to use for a fee under the anti-monopoly 1996 Telecommunications Act. Trinko claimed that Verizon discriminated against AT&T; customers by providing them worse service than it provided to its own customers. He claimed that this violated both the Telecommunications Act and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, which prohibits monopolies from aggressively defending their monopoly position in the market. A federal district court ruled that Trinko had no grounds to sue because he was not a direct customer of Verizon. A 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals panel, however, reinstated the charges leveled under the Sherman Act.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Verizon, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

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.

California Dental Association v. Federal Trade Commission

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

97-1625

Petitioner

California Dental Association

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Federal Trade Commission

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

526 U.S. 756 (1999)

Argued

Wednesday, January 13, 1999

Decided

Monday, May 24, 1999

Advocates

Peter M. Sfikas (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Lawrence G. Wallace (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

The California Dental Association (CDA), a nonprofit association of local dental societies, provides its members with insurance and financing arrangements, and engages in lobbying, litigation, marketing, and public relations for members' benefit. Members agree to abide by the CDA's Code of Ethics, which prohibits false or misleading advertising. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought a complaint against the CDA, alleging that the CDA's guidelines restricted two types of truthful, non-deceptive advertising: price advertising and advertising relating to the quality of dental services and therefore had violated section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held that the FTC had jurisdiction over the CDA and found a violation of section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC adopted most of the ALJ's factual findings and held that the price advertising, as well as the non-price, restrictions were violations of the Sherman and FTC Acts under an abbreviated rule-of-reason analysis. In affirming, the Court of Appeals sustain the FTC's jurisdiction and concluded that an abbreviated rule-of-reason analysis was proper in this case.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for California Dental Association, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Trade Commission

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.

Nynex Corp. v. Discon, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:12 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

96-1570

Petitioner

Nynex Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Discon, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

525 U.S. 128 (1998)

Argued

Monday, October 5, 1998

Decided

Monday, December 14, 1998

Advocates

Lawrence C. Brown (Argued the cause for the respondent)

James R. Young (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Lawrence G. Wallace (On behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

Discon Incorporated sold services to remove obsolete telephone equipment to Material Enterprises Company, a subsidiary of NYNEX Corporation. When Material Enterprises started to buy removal services from AT&T; Technologies instead, Discon filed suit alleging NYNEX had engaged in unfair and anticompetitive practices. Discon claimed that Material Enterprises paid AT&T; more than Discon would have received. Material Enterprises passed on the extra cost to the customers of NYNEX. Material Enterprises then received a rebate from AT&T; and shared it with NYNEX. Discon alleged these practices were intended to them and to benefit their competitor, AT&T;, because Discon refused to participate in the scheme. The District Court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, but held Discon's claims were founded under the Sherman Act. Discon had a valid claim in antitrust rules that prohibit group boycotts because the practices were anticompetitive. Moreover, the complaint stated a valid conspiracy to monopolize. NYNEX argued that this case did not constitute a group boycott and therefore it could not proceed.

Question

Does the antitrust rule outlawing group boycotts apply to a single buyer's decision to buy from one company over another?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Nynex Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

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.

State Oil Co. v. Khan

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:59 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

96-871

Petitioner

State Oil Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Khan et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

522 U.S. 3 (1997)

Argued

Tuesday, October 7, 1997

Decided

Tuesday, November 4, 1997

Advocates

John Baumgartner (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Joel I. Klein (for United States, as amicus curiae, supporting Petitioner)

Pamela J. Harbour (for State amici curiae, supporting Respondents)

Anthony S. DiVincenzo (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

Barkat U. Khan and his corporation contracted with State Oil to lease and run a gas station. Under the agreement, State Oil set a maximum profit margin for gasoline and required Khan to return any excess profits to State Oil. Khan fell behind in lease payments and was evicted. Khan then sued State Oil claiming that State Oil had engaged in price fixing in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which disallows restrictions on trade. State Oil claimed that in setting profit margins, they had not prevented Kahn from setting prices and therefore were not guilty of price fixing.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found in favor of Kahn based on the logic of Albrecht v. Herald Co. in which the Supreme Court ruled that some restrictions on trade, such as price-fixing, always have such negative effects coupled with such little competitive benefit that these restrictions are always unlawful.

Question

Is the setting of maximum prices always ("per se") a violation of the Sherman Act's prohibition on price fixing?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for State Oil Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

No. In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court overturned the Albrecht 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 Albrecht. 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 Albrecht.

Brown v. Pro Football Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

95-388

Petitioner

Brown

Respondent

Pro Football Inc.

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

518 U.S. 231 (1996)

Argued

Wednesday, March 27, 1996

Decided

Thursday, June 20, 1996

Advocates

Kenneth W. Starr (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Gregg H. Levy (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Lawrence G. Wallace (On behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

After their collective-bargaining agreement expired, the National Football League (NFL) -- a group of football clubs -- and the NFL Players Association -- a labor union -- began to negotiate a new contract. The NFL presented a plan that would permit each club to establish a "developmental squad" of substitute players, each of whom would be paid the same $1,000 weekly salary. The union disagreed. When the negotiations reached an impasse, the NFL unilaterally implemented the plan. A number of squad players brought an antitrust suit, claiming that the employers' plan unfairly restrained trade. The District Court awarded damages to the players, but the Court of Appeals reversed that decision.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Pro Football Inc., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

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.

Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:14 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-466

Petitioner

Brooke Group Ltd.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

509 U.S. 209 (1993)

Argued

Monday, March 29, 1993

Decided

Monday, June 21, 1993

Advocates

Robert H. Bork (on behalf of the Respondent)

Phillip Areeda (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Robinson-Patman

None

Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:01:04 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1111

Petitioner

Hartford Fire Insurance Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 91-1128

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

509 U.S. 764 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, February 23, 1993

Decided

Monday, June 28, 1993

Advocates

Molly S. Boast (Argued the cause for the petitioners (Merrett Underwriting Agency Management))

Laurel A. Price (Argued the cause for the respondents in both cases)

Stephen M. Shapiro (Argued the cause for the petitioners (Hartford Fire Ins.))

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

Nineteen States and many private plaintiffs filed complaints alleging that the defendants -- domestic primary insurers, trade associations, and a reinsurance broker, along with London-based as well as domestic reinsurers -- violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, by engaging in various conspiracies aimed at forcing certain other primary insurers to change the terms of their standard domestic commercial general liability insurance policies. After the actions were consolidated for litigation, the district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the conduct alleged fell within the grant of antitrust immunity contained in Section 2(b) of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1012(b), and that none of the conduct amounted to a "boycott" within the meaning of the Section 3(b), 15 U.S.C. Section 1013(b), exemption to that grant of immunity. The court of appeals reversed.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Hartford Fire Insurance Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 1012

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.

Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. Mcquillan Et Vir, Dba Sorboturf Enterprises

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:00:57 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-10

Petitioner

Spectrum Sports, Inc., et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mcquillan Et Vir, Dba Sorboturf Enterprises

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 447 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, November 10, 1992

Decided

Monday, January 25, 1993

Advocates

James D. Vail (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Jeffrey M. Shohet (on behalf of the Respondents)

Robert A. Long, Jr. (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae supporting the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Spectrum Sports, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:01:07 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1043

Petitioner

Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc., et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 49 (1993)

Argued

Monday, November 2, 1992

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1993

Advocates

Patrick J. Coyne (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Andrew J. Pincus (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Federal Trade Commission v. Ticor Title Insurance Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:22 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-72

Petitioner

Federal Trade Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ticor Title Insurance Co. et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 621 (1992)

Argued

Monday, January 13, 1992

Decided

Friday, June 12, 1992

Advocates

John C. Christie, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Federal Trade Commission, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:01 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1029

Petitioner

Eastman Kodak Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Image Technical Services, Inc., et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

504 U.S. 451 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, December 10, 1991

Decided

Monday, June 8, 1992

Advocates

James F. Rill (as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner)

Donn P. Pickett (on behalf of the Petitioner)

James A. Hennefer (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Image Technical Services, Inc., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:16:34 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-1671

Petitioner

Columbia

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Opinion

499 U.S. 365 (1991)

Argued

Wednesday, November 28, 1990

Decided

Monday, April 1, 1991

Advocates

Joel I. Klein (on behalf of the Petitioner)

A. Camden Lewis (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Columbia, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Summit Health, Ltd. v. Pinhas

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:16:22 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-1679

Petitioner

Summit Health, Ltd.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pinhas

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Opinion

500 U.S. 322 (1991)

Argued

Monday, November 26, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, May 28, 1991

Advocates

Lawrence Silver (on behalf of the Respondent)

J. Mark Waxman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Lawrence G. Wallace (as amicus curiae on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Pinhas, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Kansas v. Utilicorp United Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:47 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-2109

Petitioner

Kansas

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Utilicorp United Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 199 (1990)

Argued

Monday, April 16, 1990

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1990

Advocates

Lawrence S. Robbins (on behalf of United States, as amicus curiae, supporting Respondent)

Floyd R. Finch, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Thomas J. Greenan (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Utilicorp United Inc., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Texaco, Inc. v. Hasbrouck

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-2048

Petitioner

Texaco, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hasbrouck

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 543 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, December 5, 1989

Decided

Thursday, June 14, 1990

Advocates

Peter M. Fishbein (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Michael R. Dreeben (on behalf of United States and FTC, as amici curiae, supporting the Petitioner)

Robert H. Whaley (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Hasbrouck, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Robinson-Patman

None

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:08 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1668

Petitioner

Atlantic Richfield Co.

Respondent

USA Petroleum Co.

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 328 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, December 5, 1989

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1990

Advocates

Ronald C. Redcay (on behalf of the Petitioner)

John G. Roberts, Jr. (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

Maxwell M. Blecher (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) is an integrated oil company that sells gasoline to consumers through its own retail stations as well as independent ARCO-brand stations. USA Petroleum (USA), a competitor of ARCO, is an independent retail marketer that purchases gasoline from major petroleum companies and resells it under its own brand name. USA sued ARCO under the Clayton Act in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that ARCO had violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by conspiring with the independent ARCO-brand stations to sell gasoline at below-market prices (the Clayton Act allows private parties to bring suit when they have been harmed by anticompetitive practices that violate the Sherman Act).

The District Court ruled for ARCO, finding that even if USA could prove the conspiracy, it would not be an "antitrust injury" to USA under the Clayton Act unless it could also prove that the pricing was predatory (that is, that it was intended to drive USA and other competitors out of business). It would be impossible to prove this, the District Court concluded, because ARCO was not dominant enough in the market to exert that sort of power.

A divided panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that it was not necessary to show predatory intent to prove an "antitrust inquiry." All that was necessary was a showing that the party bringing the suit had been harmed by price fixing carried out by the party being sued.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Atlantic Richfield Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

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.

Michigan Citizens for Independent Press v. Thornburgh

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:11 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1640

Petitioner

Michigan Citizens for Independent Press

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Thornburgh

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 38 (1989)

Argued

Monday, October 30, 1989

Decided

Monday, November 13, 1989

Advocates

Thomas W. Merrill (on behalf of the Respondents)

William B. Schultz (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Thornburgh, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:46 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-157

Petitioner

Allied Tube & Conduit Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Indian Head, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 492 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, February 24, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1988

Advocates

Fredric W. Yerman (on behalf of the respondent)

Marvin E. Frankel (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Indian Head, Inc., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Patrick v. Burget

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1145

Petitioner

Patrick

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Burget

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 94 (1988)

Argued

Monday, February 22, 1988

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1988

Advocates

Thomas M. Triplett (on behalf of the Respondents)

Barbee B. Lyon (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Patrick, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Business Electronics v. Sharp Electronics

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:52 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1910

Petitioner

Business Electronics

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sharp Electronics

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 717 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, January 19, 1988

Decided

Monday, May 2, 1988

Advocates

Gary V. Mcgowan (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Harold R. Tyler, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Sharp Electronics, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

324 Liquor Corp. v. Duffy

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:48 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-2022

Appellee

Duffy

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

324 Liquor Corp.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

479 U.S. 335 (1987)

Argued

Monday, November 3, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, January 13, 1987

Advocates

W. Stephen Cannon (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae supporting appellant)

Bertram K. Kantor (on behalf of the appellant)

Christopher Keith Hall (on behalf of the appellees)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for 324 Liquor Corp., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Ftc v. Indiana Federation Of Dentists

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:56 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1809

Petitioner

Ftc

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Indiana Federation Of Dentists

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

476 U.S. 447 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, March 25, 1986

Decided

Monday, June 2, 1986

Advocates

Marcy J.K. Tiffany (on behalf of the petitioner)

Bruce W. Graham (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Ftc, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Trade Commission

None

Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier Tariff Bur.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:44 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-21

Petitioner

Square D Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Niagara Frontier Tariff Bur.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

476 U.S. 409 (1986)

Argued

Monday, March 3, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, May 27, 1986

Advocates

Douglas V. Rigler (on behalf of the petitioners)

Donald L. Flexner (on behalf of the respondents)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae in support of the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Niagara Frontier Tariff Bur., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Fisher v. Berkeley

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:26 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1538

Petitioner

Fisher

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Berkeley

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

475 U.S. 260 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, November 12, 1985

Decided

Wednesday, February 26, 1986

Advocates

Laurence H. Tribe (on behalf of Appellees)

Jon Smock (on behalf of Appellants)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Berkeley, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:44 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-2004

Petitioner

Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Zenith Radio

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

475 U.S. 574 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, November 12, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, March 25, 1986

Advocates

Donald J. Zoeller (on behalf of the petitioners)

Edwin P. Rome (on behalf of the respondents)

Charles F. Rule (for United States, as amicus curiae, in support of the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:17 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-510

Petitioner

Aspen Skiing Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 585 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, March 27, 1985

Decided

Wednesday, June 19, 1985

Advocates

Richard M. Cooper (on behalf of Petitioner)

Tucker Karl Trautman (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Northwest Stationers v. Pacific Stationery

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:10 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1368

Petitioner

Northwest Stationers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pacific Stationery

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 284 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, February 19, 1985

Decided

Tuesday, June 11, 1985

Advocates

Joseph P. Bauer (on behalf of the respondent)

David J. Sweeney (on behalf of the petitioner)

Catherine G. O'Sullivan (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae in support of petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Northwest Stationers, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Hallie v. Eau Claire

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1832

Petitioner

Hallie

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Eau Claire

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 34 (1985)

Argued

Monday, November 26, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, March 27, 1985

Advocates

Claude J. Covelli (on behalf of Petitioners)

Frederick W. Fischer (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Eau Claire, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conf. v. U.S.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:03 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1922

Petitioner

Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conf.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

U.S.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 48 (1985)

Argued

Monday, November 26, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, March 27, 1985

Advocates

Allen I. Hirsch (on behalf of the petitioners)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conf., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Ncaa v. Board Of Regents Of Univ. Of Okla.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:45 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-271

Petitioner

Ncaa v. Board Of Regents Of Uni

Respondent

Of Okla.

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 85 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, March 20, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, June 27, 1984

Advocates

Frank H. Easterbrook (on behalf of Petitioners)

Andy Coats (on behalf of Respondents)

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Of Okla., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Hoover v. Ronwin

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:11 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1474

Petitioner

Hoover

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ronwin

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 558 (1984)

Argued

Monday, January 16, 1984

Decided

Monday, May 14, 1984

Advocates

Edward Ronwin (on behalf of Respondent, pro se)

Charles R. Hoover (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Lawrence G. Wallace (as amicus curiae supporting respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Hoover, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:21 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-914

Petitioner

Monsanto Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Spray-Rite Service Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 752 (1984)

Argued

Monday, December 5, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, March 20, 1984

Advocates

Fred H. Bartlit, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

William F. Baxter (as amicus curiae)

Edward L. Foote (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Spray-Rite Service Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:09 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1260

Petitioner

Copperweld Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Independence Tube Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 752 (1984)

Argued

Monday, December 5, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, June 19, 1984

Advocates

Erwin N. Griswold (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Victor E. Grimm (on behalf of the Respondent)

Lawrence G. Wallace (as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Copperweld Corp., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:15 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1031

Petitioner

Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hyde

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 2 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, November 2, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, March 27, 1984

Advocates

Frank H. Easterbrook (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Jerrold J. Ganzfried (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae)

John M. Landis (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Bankamerica Corp. v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:06 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1487

Petitioner

Bankamerica Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

462 U.S. 122 (1983)

Argued

Wednesday, January 19, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, June 8, 1983

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of Respondents)

William H. Simon (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Bankamerica Corp., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Jefferson County Pharm. Assn. v. Abbott Labs.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:13 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-827

Petitioner

Jefferson County Pharm. Assn.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Abbott Labs.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

460 U.S. 150 (1983)

Argued

Monday, November 8, 1982

Decided

Wednesday, February 23, 1983

Advocates

David Klingsberg (on behalf of Respondent)

Joe L. Tucker, Jr. (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Jefferson County Pharm. Assn., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Robinson-Patman

None

Fall City Industries v. Vanco Beverage

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:13 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1271

Petitioner

Fall City Industries

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Vanco Beverage

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

460 U.S. 428 (1983)

Argued

Wednesday, October 13, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, March 22, 1983

Advocates

John T. Cusack (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Stephen M. Shapiro (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

Howard Adler, Jr. (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

From 1972 through 1978, Falls City Industries, Inc. sold beer to Vanco Beverage, Inc., the sole wholesale distributor for Falls City in Indiana at a higher price than Falls City charged its only wholesale distributor in Kentucky. Under Indiana law, brewers were required to sell to all Indiana wholesalers at a single price, Indiana wholesalers were prohibited from selling to out-of-state retailers, and Indiana retailers were not permitted to purchase beer from out-of-state wholesalers. Vanco filed suit, alleging that Falls City's price discrimination violated section 2(a) of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act. The Federal Court found that Vanco had established a prima facie case of price discrimination. The court rejected Falls City's "meeting-competition" defense under section 2(b) of the Clayton Act, which provides that a defendant may rebut a prima facie showing of illegal price discrimination by establishing that its lower price to any purchaser or purchasers was made in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Fall City Industries, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Robinson-Patman

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.

Associated General Contractors v. Carpenters

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:32:50 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-334

Petitioner

Associated General Contractors

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Carpenters

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

459 U.S. 519 (1983)

Argued

Tuesday, October 5, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, February 22, 1983

Advocates

Victor J. Van Bourg (on behalf of the Respondent)

James P. Watson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Associated General Contractors, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

Union Labor Life Ins. Co. v. Pireno

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:26 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-389

Petitioner

Union Labor Life Ins. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pireno

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 81-390

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

458 U.S. 119 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, April 27, 1982

Decided

Monday, June 28, 1982

Advocates

T. Richard Kennedy (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Susan M. Jenkins (on behalf of the Respondent)

B. Barry Grossman (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Pireno, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 1011

None

Blue Shield Of Virginia v. Mccready

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:26 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-225

Petitioner

Blue Shield Of Virginia

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mccready

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 465 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, March 24, 1982

Decided

Monday, June 21, 1982

Advocates

Griffin B. Bell (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Warwick R. Furr, II (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Mccready, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Clayton

None

American Soc. Of M. E.'s v. Hydrolevel Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:32:27 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1765

Petitioner

American Soc. Of M. E.'s

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hydrolevel Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 556 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, January 13, 1982

Decided

Monday, May 17, 1982

Advocates

Harold R. Tyler, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Carl W. Schwarz (on behalf of the Respondent)

Stephen M. Shapiro (as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Hydrolevel Corp., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

American Medical Assn. v. Ftc

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1690

Petitioner

American Medical Assn.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ftc

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 676 (1982)

Argued

Monday, January 11, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, March 23, 1982

Advocates

Newton N. Minow (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Howard E. Shapiro (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Ftc, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:27 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-419

Petitioner

Arizona

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Maricopa County Medical Society

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 332 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, November 4, 1981

Decided

Friday, June 18, 1982

Advocates

Philip P. Berelson (on behalf of the Respondents)

Kenneth R. Reed (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Stephen M. Shapiro (amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Arizona, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Community Communications Co., v. Boulder

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:32:26 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1350

Petitioner

Community Communications Co.,

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Boulder

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 40 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, October 13, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, January 13, 1982

Advocates

Thomas P. Mc Mahon (amicus curiae)

Jeffrey H. Howard (on behalf of the Respondents)

Harold R. Farrow (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Community Communications Co.,, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

National Gerimedical Hospital v. Blue Cross

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:28:59 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-802

Petitioner

National Gerimedical Hospital

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Blue Cross

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 378 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, April 29, 1981

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1981

Advocates

Wade H. McCree (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae)

Erwin N. Griswold (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Joshua F. Greenberg (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for National Gerimedical Hospital, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None