Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The two are not coterminous. A finding of immunity from injury caused by government action under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine does not require a finding of Parker state action. [9] If the government "action" taken is the result of petitioning, Noerr-Pennington immunity attaches to a broader range of government action than does Parker immunity.
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.
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 .
[4] That said, Justice Kennedy notes that the States' power to regulate would be "impermissibly burdened" if they had to obey United States antitrust law. [5] To address this, the Court in Parker v. Brown (1943) granted California immunity from federal antitrust laws after the state created a New Deal raisin cartel.
Parker immunity doctrine This page was last edited on 20 March 2012, at 05:40 (UTC). Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
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]
The judge overseeing former President Donald Trump's federal election interference case on Tuesday granted special counsel Jack Smith's request to file a 180-page brief on presidential immunity ...