Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Hallie Vs. Eau Claire

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 27, 1985

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

36 entries 36 unlinked
Show
  1. Hallie v. Eau
    Search
  2. Claire - 471 U.S. 34 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Hallie v. Eau
    Search
  3. Claire, 471 U.S. 34 (1985) Town of Hallie v. City
    Search
  4. exemption to the federal antitrust laws established by Parker v. Brown
    Search
  5. state policy. Lafayette v. Louisiana
    Search
  6. by no means a prerequisite to a finding that a municipality acted pursuant to clearly articulated state policy. Cantor v. Detroit
    Search
  7. Edison Co., 428 U. S. 579 , and Goldfarb v. Virginia
    Search
  8. activities are protected by the state action exemption to the federal antitrust laws established by Parker v. Brown
    Search
  9. exemption to the federal antitrust laws, as set forth in Community Communications Page 471 U. S. 38 Co. v. Boulder
    Search
  10. U. S. 40 (1982), and Parker v. Brown
    Search
  11. and concluded that the City's conduct was thus taken pursuant to state authorization within the meaning of Parker v. Brown
    Search
  12. affirm. II The starting point in any analysis involving the state action doctrine is the reasoning of Parker v. Brown
    Search
  13. beyond the reach of the antitrust laws by virtue of their status, because they are not themselves sovereign. Lafayette v. Louisiana
    Search
  14. the State may not validate a municipality's anticompetitive conduct simply by declaring it to be lawful. Parker v. Brown
    Search
  15. Id. at 435 U. S. 415 -416. In California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal
    Search
  16. it expected the City to engage in conduct that would have anticompetitive effects. Applying the analysis of Lafayette v. Louisiana
    Search
  17. that anticompetitive effects logically would result from this broad authority to regulate. See New Motor Vehicle Board v. Orrin
    Search
  18. it to act. In so doing, they rely on language in Cantor v. Detroit
    Search
  19. Edison Co., 428 U. S. 579 (1976), and Goldfarb v. Virginia
    Search
  20. was actively supervised by the State. 435 U.S. at 435 U. S. 410 . In California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal
    Search
  21. case involving the state regulation of private anticompetitive acts. See Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. United
    Search
  22. Our view of the legislature's intent is supported by Town of Hallie v. City
    Search
  23. must be shown, even where a clearly articulated state policy exists. See Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. United
    Search
  24. U.S. Supreme Court Hallie v. Eau
    Search
  25. Town of Hallie v. City
    Search
  26. Parker v. Brown
    Search
  27. Lafayette v. Louisiana
    Search
  28. Cantor v. Detroit
    Search
  29. and Goldfarb v. Virginia
    Search
  30. Co. v. Boulder
    Search
  31. and Parker v. Brown
    Search
  32. of Parker v. Brown
    Search
  33. In California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal
    Search
  34. of Lafayette v. Louisiana
    Search
  35. See New Motor Vehicle Board v. Orrin
    Search
  36. See Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial