Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Goldfarb Vs. Virginia State Bar

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 16, 1975

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

67 entries 5 linked 62 unlinked
Show
  1. Apex Hosiery Co. Vs. Leader US Supreme Court · May 27, 1940
  2. California Vs. Fpc US Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1962
  3. Olsen Vs. Smith US Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1904
  4. Cohen Vs. Hurley US Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1961
  5. Law Students Research Council Vs. Wadmond US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1971
  6. Goldfarb v. Virginia
    Search
  7. State Bar - 421 U.S. 773 (1975) U.S. Supreme Court Goldfarb v. Virginia
    Search
  8. State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (1975) Goldfarb v. Virginia
    Search
  9. Parke v. Bown
    Search
  10. within the meaning of Parker v. Brown
    Search
  11. and enforcement of the schedule by the State Bar was exempt from the Sherman Act as state action as defined in Parker v. Brown
    Search
  12. Act. Both respondents argued that their actions were also exempt from the Sherman Act as state action. Parker v. Brown
    Search
  13. id. at 13, the Court of Appeals held the State Bar immune under Parker v. Brown
    Search
  14. a showing of an actual restraint on trade, would present us with a different question, e.g., American Column Co. v. United
    Search
  15. Maple Flooring Assn. v. United
    Search
  16. States, 268 U. S. 563 , 268 U. S. 580 (1925). But see United States v. National
    Search
  17. fee. The price information disseminated did not concern past standards, cf. Cement Mfrs. Protective Assn. v. United
    Search
  18. This is not merely a case of an agreement that may be inferred from an exchange of price information, United States v. Container
    Search
  19. All attorneys, of course, were practicing under the constraint of the fee schedule. See generally United States v. Container
    Search
  20. Page 421 U. S. 785 United States v. Frankfort
    Search
  21. Distilleries, 324 U. S. 293 , 324 U. S. 297 (1945). See United States v. Yellow
    Search
  22. of real estate transactions, we conclude that interstate commerce has been sufficiently affected. See Montague & Co. v. Lowry
    Search
  23. United States v. Women's
    Search
  24. and our cases have shown that, once an effect is shown, no specific magnitude need be proved. E.g., United States v. McKesson
    Search
  25. U. S. 469 , 310 U. S. 501 (1940). See United States v. Socony-Vacuum
    Search
  26. The nature of an occupation, standing alone, does not provide sanctuary from the Sherman Act, Associated Press v. United
    Search
  27. includes professions. United States v. National
    Search
  28. United States v. South-Eastern
    Search
  29. And our cases have repeatedly established that there is a heavy presumption against implicit exemptions, United States v. Philadelphia
    Search
  30. E.g., American Medical Assn. v. United
    Search
  31. Radovich v. National
    Search
  32. intercourse, and that anticompetitive activities by lawyers may exert a restraint on commerce. D In Parker v. Brown
    Search
  33. Sherman Act was not meant to proscribe is whether the activity is required by the State acting as sovereign. Parker v. Brown
    Search
  34. Continental Co. v. Union
    Search
  35. Cf. Gibson v. Berryhill
    Search
  36. Parker v. Brown
    Search
  37. State Medical Society, 343 U. S. 326 , 343 U. S. 336 (1952). See also Semler v. Oregon
    Search
  38. See Sperry v. Florida
    Search
  39. It is in a practical sense that we must view an effect on interstate commerce, Swift & Co. v. United
    Search
  40. Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. American
    Search
  41. The County Bar relies on United States v. Yellow
    Search
  42. under the antitrust laws. E.g., Federal Club v. National
    Search
  43. FTC v. Raladam
    Search
  44. Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers v. United
    Search
  45. United States v. National
    Search
  46. that the question was still open, 339 U.S. at 339 U. S. 492 , as we had done earlier in American Medical Assn. v. United
    Search
  47. In addition, the Supreme Court of Virginia, has inherent power to regulate the practice of law in that State. Button v. Day
    Search
  48. U.S. Supreme Court Goldfarb v. Virginia
    Search
  49. of Parker v. Brown
    Search
  50. American Column Co. v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial