Matches in DBpedia 2015-10 for { <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption)> ?p ?o }
Showing triples 1 to 29 of
29
with 100 triples per page.
- Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption) abstract "To determine whether the Sherman Antitrust Act preempts a state law, courts will engage in a two-step analysis, as set forth by the Supreme Court in Rice v. Norman Williams Co..First, they will inquire whether the state legislation "mandates or authorizes conduct that necessarily constitutes a violation of the antitrust laws in all cases, or ... places irresistible pressure on a private party to violate the antitrust laws in order to comply with the statute." Rice v. Norman Williams Co., 458 U.S. 654, 661; see also 324 Liquor Corp. v. Duffy, 479 U.S. 335 (1987) ("Our decisions reflect the principle that the federal antitrust laws pre-empt state laws authorizing or compelling private parties to engage in anticompetitive behavior.")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. 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).The antitrust laws allow coincident state regulation of competition. The Supreme Court enunciated the test for determining when a state statute is in irreconcilable conflict with Section 1 of the Sherman Act in Rice v. Norman Williams Co.. Different standards apply depending on whether a statute is attacked on its face or for its effects.A statute can be condemned on its face only when it mandates, authorizes or places irresistible pressure on private parties to engage in conduct constituting a per se violation of Section 1.If the statute does not mandate conduct violating a per se rule, the conduct is analyzed under the rule of reason, which requires an examination of the conduct's actual effects on competition. If unreasonable anticompetitive effects are created, the required conduct violates Section 1 and the statute is in irreconcilable conflict with the Sherman Act. Then statutory arrangement is analyzed to determine whether it qualifies as "state action" and is thereby saved from preemption.Rice sets out guidelines to aid in preemption analysis. Preemption should not occur "simply because in a hypothetical situation a private party's compliance with the statute might cause him to violate the antitrust laws." This language suggests that preemption occurs only if economic analysis determines that the statutory requirements create "an unacceptable and unnecessary risk of anticompetitive effect," and does not occur simply because it is possible to use the statute in an anticompetitive manner. It should not mean that preemption is impossible whenever both procompetitive and anticompetitive results are conceivable. The per se rule "reflects the judgment that such cases are not sufficiently common or important to justify the time and expense necessary to identify them."Another important, yet, in the context of Rice, ambiguous guideline regarding preemption by Section 1 is the Court's statement that a "state statute is not preempted by the federal antitrust laws simply because the state scheme might have an anticompetitive effect." The meaning of this statement is clarified by examining the three cases cited in Rice to support the statement.In New Motor Vehicle Board v. Orrin W. Fox Co., automobile manufacturers and retail franchisees contended that the Sherman Act preempted a statute requiring manufacturers to secure the permission of a state board before opening a new dealership if and only if a competing dealer protested. They argued that a conflict existed because the statute permitted "auto dealers to invoke state power for the purpose of restraining intrabrand competition."In Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland, oil companies challenged a state statute requiring uniform statewide gasoline prices in situations where the Robinson-Patman Act would permit charging different prices. They reasoned that the Robinson-Patman Act is a qualification of our "more basic national policy favoring free competition" and that any state statute altering "the competitive balance that Congress struck between the Robinson-Patman and Sherman Acts" should be preempted.In both New Motor Vehicle and Exxon, the Court upheld the statutes and rejected the arguments presented asMerely another way of stating that the . . . statute will have an anticompetitive effect. In this sense, there is a conflict between the statute and the central policy of the Sherman Act -- 'our charter of economic liberty'. . . . Nevertheless, this sort of conflict cannot itself constitute a sufficient reason for invalidating the . . . statute. For if an adverse effect on competition were, in and of itself, enough to render a state statute invalid, the States' power to engage in economic regulation would be effectively destroyed.This indicates that not every anticompetitive effect warrants preemption. In neither Exxon nor New Motor Vehicle did the created effect constitute an antitrust violation. The Rice guideline therefore indicates that only when the effect unreasonably restrains trade, and is therefore a violation, can preemption occur.The third case cited to support the "anticompetitive effect" guideline is Joseph E. Seagram & Sons v. Hostetter, in which the Court rejected a facial Sherman Act preemption challenge to a statute requiring that persons selling liquor to wholesalers affirm that the price charged was no higher than the lowest price at which sales were made anywhere in the United States during the previous month. Since the attack was a facial one, and the state law required no per se violations, no preemption could occur. The Court also rejected the possibility of preemption due to Sherman Act violations stemming from misuse of the statute. The Court stated that rather than imposing "irresistible economic pressure" on sellers to violate the Sherman Act, the statute "appears firmly anchored to the assumption that the Sherman Act will deter any attempts by the appellants to preserve their . . . price level [in one state] by conspiring to raise the prices at which liquor is sold elsewhere in the country." Thus, Seagram indicates that when conduct required by a state statute combines with other conduct that, taken together, constitutes an illegal restraint of trade, liability may be imposed for the restraint without requiring preemption of the state statute.Rice v. Norman Williams Co. supports this misuse limitation on preemption. Rice states that while particular conduct or arrangements by private parties would be subject to per se or rule of reason analysis to determine liability, "[t]here is no basis . . . for condemning the statute itself by force of the Sherman Act."Thus, when a state requires conduct analyzed under the rule of reason, a court must carefully distinguish rule of reason analysis for preemption purposes from the analysis for liability purposes. To analyze whether preemption occurs, the court must determine whether the inevitable effects of a statutory restraint unreasonably restrain trade. If they do, preemption is warranted unless the statute passes the appropriate state action tests. But, when the statutory conduct combines with other practices in a larger conspiracy to restrain trade, or when the statute is used to violate the antitrust laws in a market in which such a use is not compelled by the state statute, the private party might be subjected to antitrust liability without preemption of the statute.".
- Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption) wikiPageID "23375124".
- Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption) wikiPageLength "14572".
- Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption) wikiPageOutDegree "13".
- Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption) wikiPageRevisionID "474864582".
- Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption) wikiPageWikiLink 324_Liquor_Corp._v._Duffy.
- Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption) wikiPageWikiLink California_Retail_Liquor_Dealers_Assn_v._Midcal_Aluminum,_Inc..
- Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption) wikiPageWikiLink Category:United_States_antitrust_law.
- Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption) wikiPageWikiLink Category:United_States_federal_preemption_law.
- Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption) wikiPageWikiLink Exxon_Corp._v._Governor_of_Maryland.
- Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption) wikiPageWikiLink Joseph_E._Seagram_&_Sons_v._Hostetter.
- Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption) wikiPageWikiLink New_Motor_Vehicle_Board_v._Orrin_W._Fox_Co..
- Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption) wikiPageWikiLink Parker_immunity_doctrine.
- Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption) wikiPageWikiLink Rice_v._Norman_Williams_Co..
- Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption) wikiPageWikiLink Robinson-Patman_Act.
- Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption) wikiPageWikiLink Robinson–Patman_Act.
- Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption) wikiPageWikiLink Sherman_Antitrust_Act.
- Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption) wikiPageWikiLink State_action_immunity_doctrine.
- Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption) wikiPageWikiLinkText "Sherman Antitrust Act (federal preemption)".
- Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption) hasPhotoCollection Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption).
- Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption) subject Category:United_States_antitrust_law.
- Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption) subject Category:United_States_federal_preemption_law.
- Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption) comment "To determine whether the Sherman Antitrust Act preempts a state law, courts will engage in a two-step analysis, as set forth by the Supreme Court in Rice v. Norman Williams Co..First, they will inquire whether the state legislation "mandates or authorizes conduct that necessarily constitutes a violation of the antitrust laws in all cases, or ... places irresistible pressure on a private party to violate the antitrust laws in order to comply with the statute." Rice v.".
- Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption) label "Sherman Antitrust Act (federal preemption)".
- Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption) sameAs m.06w9cp7.
- Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption) sameAs Q7495124.
- Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption) sameAs Q7495124.
- Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption) wasDerivedFrom Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption)?oldid=474864582.
- Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption) isPrimaryTopicOf Sherman_Antitrust_Act_(federal_preemption).