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 .
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]
Qualified immunity is a doctrine of federal law, not affected by changes in state law. Nonetheless, some states have passed what they deem to be modifications of qualified immunity in the context of state law claims. These changes do not impact the doctrine of qualified immunity as applied to federal constitutional law.
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
There is a "sham" exception to the Noerr–Pennington doctrine which holds that using the petitioning process simply as an anticompetitive tool without legitimately seeking a positive outcome to the petitioning destroys immunity. [17] The Supreme Court has articulated a two-part test to determine the existence of "sham" litigation.
It is also referred to as a Supremacy Clause immunity or simply federal immunity from state law. The doctrine was established by the United States Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), [1] which ruled unanimously that states may not regulate property or operations of the federal government. In that case, Maryland state law subjected ...
In his dissent, Harlan argued "the doctrine of the autonomy of the states cannot properly be invoked to justify a denial of power in the national government to meet such an emergency." He continued to argue the Constitution gives Congress "authority to enact all laws necessary and proper" to regulate commerce and cited McCulloch v. Maryland. . [1]