Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Parker immunity doctrine is an exemption from liability for engaging in antitrust violations. It applies to the state when it exercises legislative authority in creating a regulation with anticompetitive effects, and to private actors when they act at the direction of the state after it has done so.
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 .
California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U.S. 97 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court created a two-part test for the application of the state action immunity doctrine that it had previously developed in Parker v.
The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), on the grounds that the tobacco companies were immune from antitrust liability under the Noerr-Pennington and Parker immunity doctrines.
Virginia State Bar (1975) found Parker immunity required what Justice Kennedy calls “more than a mere facade of state involvement”. Because the Sherman Act was designed to break private monopolies, [6] Justice Kennedy does not accept that the "congressional judgment" was to allow the States to delegate their immunity to a private monopoly. [7]
The argument that natural immunity against COVID-19 is an alternative to vaccination is emerging as a potential legal challenge to federally mandated vaccination policies.
Second, they will consider whether the state statute is saved from preemption by the state action immunity doctrine (aka Parker immunity). In California Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v.
The immunity debate comes as the country is experiencing another surge in infections and hospitalizations and 60 million people remain unvaccinated in a pandemic that has killed more than 770,000 ...