Search : U.S. Supreme Court : Antitrust & Trade Regulation : From 10/01/06 To 07/01/07
Number of summaries found: 6
Search For More Summaries
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Commercial Law, Manufacturing, Retail |
| Title: | Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. |
| Date: | 06/28/07 |
| Case Number: | 06-480 |
| Summary: | Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373, which makes it per se illegal under section 1 of the Sherman Act for a manufacturer and its distributor to agree on the minimum price the distributor can charge for the manufacturer's goods, is overruled. Vertical price restraints are to be judged by the rule of reason. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Civil Procedure, International Law |
| Title: | Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs. |
| Date: | 06/18/07 |
| Case Number: | 05-85 |
| Summary: | When a district court remands a properly removed case because it nonetheless lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the remand is covered by 28 U.S.C. section 1447(c), and is thus shielded from review by section 1447(d). Further, when a district court relies upon a ground that is colorably characterized as subject-matter jurisdiction, 1447(d)'s bar on appellate review applies. In an appeal arising from suits brought in California state courts against various companies in the California energy market, alleging that they had conspired to fix prices in violation of California law, a court of appeals judgment finding inter alia that it was not precluded from reviewing substantive issues of law that preceded a remand order is vacated in part, as section 1447(d) barred appellate consideration of petitioner's claim that it is a foreign state for purposes of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Banking Law, Civil Procedure, Securities Law |
| Title: | Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC v. Billing |
| Date: | 06/18/07 |
| Case Number: | 05-1157 |
| Summary: | In a suit brought by a group of investors alleging that petitioners-investment banks, acting as underwriting firms, violated antitrust laws when they formed syndicates to help execute initial public offerings (IPOs) for hundreds of technology-related companies, a court of appeals' decision reversing dismissal of the complaints is reversed as federal securities law implicitly precludes the application of the antitrust laws to the conduct alleged in the case. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Civil Procedure, Government Law, Manufacturing |
| Title: | Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc. |
| Date: | 06/11/07 |
| Case Number: | 05-1284 |
| Summary: | In the context of the federal officer removal statute, the fact that a federal regulatory agency directs, supervises, and monitors a company's activities in considerable detail does not bring that company within 28 U.S.C. section 1442(a)(1)'s scope so as to permit removal of the action from state court to federal court. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Civil Procedure, Communications Law, Contracts |
| Title: | Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly |
| Date: | 05/21/07 |
| Case Number: | 05-1126 |
| Summary: | Stating a claim under section 1 of the Sherman Act requires a complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest that an agreement was made. An allegation of parallel conduct and a bare assertion of conspiracy will not suffice. Under such plausibility standard, plaintiffs' putative class action at hand should be dismissed as it alleged only that major telecommunications providers engaged in certain parallel conduct unfavorable to competition, and did not make any independent allegation of actual agreement among the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers for purposes of a conspiracy in restraint of trade. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Agriculture, Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Commercial Law |
| Title: | Weyerhauser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co., Inc. |
| Date: | 02/20/07 |
| Case Number: | 05-381 |
| Summary: | In the antitrust context of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the test the Court applied to claims of predatory pricing in Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (1993), also applies to claims of predatory bidding, which involves the exercise of market power on the buy side or input side of a market to drive the price of a critical input to high levels. |