enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Parker immunity doctrine - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_immunity_doctrine

    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.

  3. California Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Retail_Liquor...

    1. California's wine-pricing system constitutes resale price maintenance in violation of the Sherman Act, since the wine producer holds the power to prevent price competition by dictating the prices charged by wholesalers. And the State's involvement in the system is insufficient to establish antitrust immunity under Parker v. Brown. While the ...

  4. Parker v. Brown - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_v._Brown

    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 .

  5. North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_State_Board...

    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]

  6. Category : State sovereign immunity in the United States

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:State_sovereign...

    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 ...

  7. Sherman Antitrust Act - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act

    Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U.S. 97, 105 (1980), the Supreme Court established a two-part test for applying the doctrine: "First, the challenged restraint must be one clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy; second, the policy must be actively supervised by the State itself." Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted).

  8. Sotomayor Is Right: The Supreme Court Should Reevaluate ... - AOL

    www.aol.com/news/sotomayor-supreme-court...

    The doctrine makes it nearly impossible for victims of prosecutorial misconduct to get recourse. Sotomayor Is Right: The Supreme Court Should Reevaluate Absolute Immunity for Prosecutors Skip to ...

  9. A.D. Bedell Wholesale Co., Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.D._Bedell_Wholesale_Co...

    the lower court erred, in that the tobacco companies were not immune from liability under the Parker doctrine: the states' supervision under the terms of the settlement agreement did not reach those parts of the agreement that were the source of the antitrust injury, i.e., cigarette pricing and production. Parker v.