Citation network
Fisher Vs. City of Berkeley
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 26, 1986
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
-
Fisher v. CitySearch
-
of Berkeley - 475 U.S. 260 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Fisher v. CitySearch
-
of Berkeley, 475 U.S. 260 (1986) Fisher v. CitySearch
-
by the California Court of Appeal. In the meantime, based on the intervening decision in Community Communications Co. v. BoulderSearch
-
places complete control over maximum rent levels exclusively in the Rent Stabilization Board's hands. Schwegmann Bros. v. CalvertSearch
-
Distillers Corp., 341 U. S. 384 , and California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. MidcalSearch
-
by the Court of Appeal. While that appeal was pending, however, this Court's decision in Community Communications Co. v. BoulderSearch
-
Cal.3d at 660, 693 P.2d at 275 (quoting First American Title Co. v. SouthSearch
-
of the Sherman Act. See Rice v. NormanSearch
-
per se rules and the rule of reason, see Page 475 U. S. 264 National Society of Professional Engineers v. UnitedSearch
-
may often be to tamper with free markets, correcting their failures and aiding their victims, this Court noted in Rice v. NormanSearch
-
id. at 458 U. S. 659 . See Exxon Page 475 U. S. 265 Corp. v. GovernorSearch
-
As in other preemption cases, the analysis is the same for the acts of both levels of government. See, e.g., White v. MassachusettsSearch
-
under Rice may nonetheless survive if it is found to be state action immune from antitrust scrutiny under Parker v. BrownSearch
-
The ultimate source of that immunity can be only the State, not its subdivisions. See Community Communications Co. v. BoulderSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Lafayette v. LouisianaSearch
-
has been one of the settled points of antitrust enforcement since the earliest days of the Sherman Act, see Arizona v. MaricopaSearch
-
United States v. Socony-VacuumSearch
-
reasonable prices out of solicitude for the welfare of their tenants. See National Society of Professional Engineers v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. Trans-MissouriSearch
-
Copperweld Corp. v. IndependenceSearch
-
distinguished from a concerted effort by more than one entity to fix prices or otherwise restrain trade, Monsanto Co. v. Spray-RiteSearch
-
United States v. ParkeSearch
-
of a particular rent ceiling, it may decide not to. There is no meeting of the minds here. See American Tobacco Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
in that nonmarket mechanisms merely enforce private marketing decisions. See Rice v. NormanSearch
-
Indeed, this Court has twice found such hybrid restraints to violate the Sherman Act. See Schwegmann Bros. v. CalvertSearch
-
California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. MidcalSearch
-
the Sherman Act, we cannot say that the Ordinance is facially inconsistent with the federal antitrust laws. See Rice v. NormanSearch
-
violations, they would be exempt under the state action doctrine from antitrust scrutiny. See Hallie v. EauSearch
-
the inquiry demanded by appellants' allegations goes beyond the scope of the facial challenge presented here. See Rice v. NormanSearch
-
exemption of Parker v. BrownSearch
-
exemption removes the conduct from the coverage of the antitrust laws. Hallie v. EauSearch
-
Community Communications Co. v. BoulderSearch
-
U.S. at 471 U. S. 43 . See also Lafayette v. LouisianaSearch
-
froze rents at 1971 levels, subject to individual adjustments by a popularly elected rent control board. Birkenfeld v. CitySearch
-
that charter amendments be approved by concurrent resolution of both houses of the state legislature. Birkenfeld v. CitySearch
-
Birkenfeld, supra, at 171, 172, 550 P.2d at 1031, 1032. JUSTICE BRENNAN, dissenting. Since Parker v. BrownSearch
-
or implementation of clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy. See Community Communications Co. v. BoulderSearch
-
Ordinance (hereafter Ordinance) effectively fixes prices for rental units in the city of Berkeley. In Rice v. NormanSearch
-
Act because they eliminated price competition in the relevant market. In California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. MidcalSearch
-
Ibid. (quoting Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. JohnSearch
-
D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373 , 220 U. S. 408 (1911)). Schwegmann Bros. v. CalvertSearch
-
Monsanto Co. v. Spray-RiteSearch
-
s conclusion that any resulting price restraints did not necessarily result from collective action. Cf. Monsanto Co. v. Spray-RiteSearch
-
that Congress has not enacted such a broad antitrust exemption for municipalities. See Community Communications Co. v. BoulderSearch
-
the California Supreme Court's decision in Birkenfeld v. CitySearch
-
that this purely pro forma approval would qualify the amendment for the Parker exemption. See Cantor v. DetroitSearch
-
of these statutory obligations, see Hallie v. EauSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Fisher v. CitySearch
-
Schwegmann Bros. v. CalvertSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial