Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
City Of Cleveland V. Cei: A Case Study In Attempts To Monopolize By Regulated Utilities, Barry Kellman, Nicholas J. Marino
City Of Cleveland V. Cei: A Case Study In Attempts To Monopolize By Regulated Utilities, Barry Kellman, Nicholas J. Marino
Cleveland State Law Review
In Cleveland, Ohio a legal controversy had developed which compels the judiciary to evaluate the limits of competition. Seventy years of head-to-head combat between a large investor-owned electric system and a smaller city-owned company has entered the federal courts as an issue to be resolved under section two of the Sherman Act. The precise issue is whether a refusal by the larger utility to sell or wheel power to the smaller utility constitutes an illegal act of monopolization. To resolve this issue, the judiciary must superimpose upon a stormy political dispute an abstract formulation of proper and improper business conduct. …
Protest Boycotts As Restraints Of Trade Under The Sherman Act: A Proposed Standard, Francis M. Allegra
Protest Boycotts As Restraints Of Trade Under The Sherman Act: A Proposed Standard, Francis M. Allegra
Cleveland State Law Review
This paper will maintain that genuine protest boycotts are not anticompetitive because they do not restrict the economic freedom of either the participants or the boycotted entity; nor are they used to enforce an anticompetitive practice, such as collusion or horizontal exclusion. In Part II, cases dealing with unilateral and concerted refusals to deal will be examined to determine under which circumstances refusals to deal are illegal. Part III will analyze two recent protest boycotts cases: Crown Central Petroleum v. Waldman, and Osborn v. Pennsylvania-Delaware Service Station. The legal standards used in these cases will be rejected in Part IV …