Citation network
Hoover Vs. Ronwin
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 14, 1984
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
-
U.S. 558 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Hoover v. RonwinSearch
-
U.S. 558 (1984) Hoover v. RonwinSearch
-
Petitioners contended that they were immune from antitrust liability under the state action doctrine of Parker v. BrownSearch
-
position as that of a state legislature Page 466 U. S. 559 for purposes of the state action doctrine. Bates v. StateSearch
-
Arizona Supreme Court, and is therefore exempt from Sherman Act liability under the state action doctrine. Cf. Bates v. StateSearch
-
among the committees, commissions, or others who necessarily must advise the sovereign would emasculate the Parker v. BrownSearch
-
Constitution vests authority in the court to determine who should be admitted to practice law in the State. Hunt v. MaricopaSearch
-
In particular, petitioners alleged that, acting as a Committee, they were immune from antitrust liability under Parker v. BrownSearch
-
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the complaint. Ronwin v. StateSearch
-
state a claim as a holding that bar examination grading procedures are immune from federal antitrust laws under Parker v. BrownSearch
-
II The starting point in any analysis involving the state action doctrine is the reasoning of Parker v. BrownSearch
-
It has never departed, however, from Parker's basic reasoning. Applying the Parker doctrine in Bates v. StateSearch
-
acting legislatively rather than judicially, is exempt from Sherman Act liability as state action. See also Goldfarb v. VirginiaSearch
-
but is carried out by others pursuant to state authorization. See, e.g., Community Communications Co. v. BoulderSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. MidcalSearch
-
New Motor Vehicle Board of California v. OrrinSearch
-
to ensure that the anticompetitive conduct of the State's representative was contemplated by the State. Lafayette v. LouisianaSearch
-
New Mexico v. AmericanSearch
-
the Committee can be divorced from the Supreme Court's exercise of its sovereign powers. The Court's opinion in Bates v. StateSearch
-
at 433 U. S. 361 . It therefore is exempt from Sherman Act liability under the state action doctrine of Parker v. BrownSearch
-
Bates v. StateSearch
-
U. S. 359 -361. Our opinion, therefore, also is wholly consistent with the Court's reasoning in Lafayette v. LouisianaSearch
-
Power & Light Co., 435 U. S. 389 (1978), and Community Communications Co. v. BoulderSearch
-
commissions, or others who necessarily must advise the sovereign. Such a holding would emasculate the Parker v. BrownSearch
-
Hackin v. LockwoodSearch
-
The District Court dismissed the suit as to these defendants, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. Ronwin v. StateSearch
-
of the Court of Appeals' opinion in a conditional cross-petition for certiorari. We denied the cross-petition. Ronwin v. HooverSearch
-
had not abused its discretion in denying the motion. 6 86 F.2d at 701. We declined to review that finding. Ronwin v. HooverSearch
-
Community Communications Co. v. BoulderSearch
-
Lafayette v. LouisianaSearch
-
Ronwin does not dispute that regulation of the bar is a sovereign function of the Arizona Supreme Court. In Bates v. StateSearch
-
Likewise, in Goldfarb v. VirginiaSearch
-
the Court of Appeals recognized the similarity between this case and Bates, it found the facts in Goldfarb v. VirginiaSearch
-
on behalf of the United States as amicus, contends that our recent opinion in Community Communications Co. v. BoulderSearch
-
the conclusion we reach today. In Boulder, we reiterated the analysis of JUSTICE BRENNAN's opinion in Lafayette v. LouisianaSearch
-
petitioners' contention that they are immune from liability under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. See Mine Workers v. PenningtonSearch
-
Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. NoerrSearch
-
ny possible claim that the challenged conduct is that of the State Supreme Court is squarely foreclosed by Goldfarb v. VirginiaSearch
-
between action by the sovereign itself and action taken by a subordinate body. The dissent also cites Cantor v. DetroitSearch
-
Edison Co., 428 U. S. 579 (1976), and California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. MidcalSearch
-
from performing this essential public service. See Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
if it is specifically designed to control output and to regulate prices, does not violate the antitrust laws. Parker v. BrownSearch
-
and must be appropriately supervised. See Community Communications Co. v. BoulderSearch
-
were challenging a restraint of trade imposed by the sovereign itself, this case would be governed by Parker v. BrownSearch
-
Any possible claim that the challenged conduct is that of the State Supreme Court is squarely foreclosed by Goldfarb v. VirginiaSearch
-
Id. at 421 U. S. 790 (emphasis supplied) (citations omitted). In Bates v. StateSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Hoover v. RonwinSearch
-
of Parker v. BrownSearch
-
Cf. Bates v. StateSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial