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.
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]
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 .
State action immunity may refer to: Act of state doctrine - legal doctrine that sovereign states must respect the independence of other sovereign states Parker immunity doctrine - legal doctrine in U.S. courts that certain acts of the U.S. state governments are immune from antitrust liability
The process of introducing a consent decree begins with negotiation. [5] One of three things happens: a lawsuit is filed and the parties concerned reach an agreement prior to adjudication of the contested issues; a lawsuit is filed and actively contested, and the parties reach an agreement after the court has ruled on some issues; or the parties settle their dispute prior to the filing of a ...
This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Qualified immunity applies only to government officials in civil litigation, and does not protect the government itself from suits arising from officials' actions. [4] The U.S. Supreme Court first introduced the qualified immunity doctrine in Pierson v. Ray, a case litigated during the height of the civil rights movement. It is stated to have ...
Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (1984), is a major US antitrust law case decided by the Supreme Court concerning the Pittsburgh firm Copperweld Corporation and the Chicago firm Independence Tube. [1]