Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
State Rejection Of Federal Law, Thomas B. Bennett
State Rejection Of Federal Law, Thomas B. Bennett
Faculty Publications
Sometimes the United States Supreme Court speaks, and states do not follow. For example, in 2003, the Arizona Supreme Court agreed to "reject" a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, because no "sound reasons justif[ied] following" it. Similarly, in 2006, Michigan voters approved a ballot initiative that, according to the legislature that drafted it, sought "at the very least to freeze' the state's ... law to prevent" state courts from following a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. Surprising though this language may be, there is nothing nefarious about these cases. Cooper v. Aaron this is not. Unlike more notorious …
A Decision-Theoretic Rule Of Reason For Minimum Resale Price Maintenance, Thom Lambert
A Decision-Theoretic Rule Of Reason For Minimum Resale Price Maintenance, Thom Lambert
Faculty Publications
This article evaluates these approaches from the perspective of decision theory and, finding each lacking, proposes an alternative approach to structuring the rule of reason governing RPM. Part II sets forth the decision-theoretic perspective, which seeks to maximize the net benefits of liability rules by minimizing the sum of decision and error costs. Part III then evaluates, from the standpoint of decision theory, the proposed approaches to evaluating instances of RPM. Part IV proposes an alternative evaluative approach that is more consistent with decision theory’s insights.
Dr. Miles Is Dead. Now What?: Structuring A Rule Of Reason For Minimum Resale Price Maintenance, Thom Lambert
Dr. Miles Is Dead. Now What?: Structuring A Rule Of Reason For Minimum Resale Price Maintenance, Thom Lambert
Faculty Publications
This article critiques six approaches that have been proposed for evaluating minimum RPM and offers an alternative approach. The six approaches critiqued are (1) the Brandeisian, unstructured rule of reason; (2) Judge Posner's rule of per se legality; (3) the approach advocated by 27 states in the recent Nine West case; (4) the approach adopted by the Federal Trade Commission in that case; (5) the approach advocated by economists William Comanor and F.M. Scherer; and (6) the approach proposed in the Areeda & Hovenkamp Antitrust Law treatise. Finding each of these approaches deficient, the article proposes an alternative evaluative approach …
The 'Failure To Mitigate' Defense In Antitrust, Thom Lambert
The 'Failure To Mitigate' Defense In Antitrust, Thom Lambert
Faculty Publications
The article begins with the premise that any failure to mitigate defense should aim to minimize the sum of three costs: the costs associated with inefficient behavior by defendants, the costs associated with inefficient behavior by plaintiffs, and the administrative costs of claim adjudication. If cost minimization is the goal, then whether a failure to mitigate defense exists, and the content of the antitrust plaintiff’s mitigation requirement, should differ depending on the type of damages the plaintiff is seeking to recover. The bulk of this article discusses how the defense should apply to different damages claims.The article proceeds as follows: …
Weyerhaeuser And The Search For Antitrust's Holy Grail, Thom Lambert
Weyerhaeuser And The Search For Antitrust's Holy Grail, Thom Lambert
Faculty Publications
A general definition of exclusionary conduct has become a sort of Holy Grail for antitrust scholars. At present, four proposed definitions appear most promising: (1) conduct that could exclude an equally efficient rival; (2) conduct that raises rivals' costs unjustifiably; (3) conduct that, on balance, impairs consumer welfare by creating market power without providing countervailing consumer benefits; and (4) conduct that makes no economic sense but for its exclusionary effect on rivals.
Litigation As A Predatory Practice, Gary Myers
Litigation As A Predatory Practice, Gary Myers
Faculty Publications
This article reviews and evaluates the sham litigation case law, finding that many courts have allowed immunity too readily or on inappropriate grounds. It attempts to develop comprehensive standards for antitrust claims based on sham litigation.