Law Commons^™

Making Sense Of The Rule Of Reason: A New Standard For Section 1 Of The Sherman Act, Thomas A. Piraino, Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

For most of the twentieth century, the federal courts have assumed that they must choose between two extreme methods of analyzing conduct under Section 1 of the Sherman Act:' a per se rule that deems certain conduct illegal on its face; or, a rule of reason that inquires into all conceivable circumstances before determining the legality of a particular restraint. Until the 1970s, the courts were enamored of the clarity, simplicity, and deterrent effects of per se rules. As they have become more knowledgeable about economic theory in the last fifteen years, however, the courts have grown disillusioned with the …

Brooke Group Ltd. V. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.: A Victory For Consumer Welfare Under The Robinson-Patman Act, Keith Allen May

University of Richmond Law Review

The preservation of competition among business entities is vital to the success of any economy. Recognizing the importance of competition, the United States Congress has passed antitrust laws that seek to enhance productivity and protect consumers. Although the antitrust laws, like all statutes, are vulnerable to a variety of different interpretations, "[t]he language of the antitrust statutes, their legislative histories, the major structural features of the antitrust law, and considerations of the scope, nature, consistency, and ease of administration of the law all indicate that the law should be guided solely by the criterion of consumer welfare." The antitrust laws …

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Antitrust And Trade Regulation, Michael F. Urbanski, Francis H. Casola

University of Richmond Law Review

Once again this past year, the Fourth Circuit and the federal courts in Virginia proved inhospitable to antitrust plaintiffs. Plaintiffs consistently lost on summary judgment and only one plaintiff survived a motion to dismiss. The only major development in the law in the Fourth Circuit came from the Western District of Virginia where Judge James C. Turk refused to recognize the theory of monopoly leveraging under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

Federal Courts And The Regulation Of The Insurance Industry: An Empirical And Historical Analysis Of Courts' Ineffectual Attempts To Harmonize Federal Antitrust, Arbitration, And Insolvency Statutes With The Mccarran-Ferguson Act--1941-1993, Willy E. Rice

Faculty Articles

The movement to reform the McCarran-Ferguson Act is misplaced. The Supreme Court and the lower federal courts are inferior forums for resolving insurance-related controversies. The language of the McCarran-Ferguson Act is unclear, and this lack of clarity created division among the federal courts.

Courts are divided over the definition of “business of insurance” and this causes problems for both consumers and the insurance industry. In addition, the Act also states that the Sherman Act shall apply to any insurance-related agreement or activity involving boycott, coercion, or intimidation; yet again, courts are divided over the applicability of the Sherman Act. Also, …