Citation network
Patrick Vs. Burget
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 16, 1988
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. 94 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Patrick v. BurgetSearch
-
U.S. 94 (1988) Patrick v. BurgetSearch
-
on the ground that respondents' conduct was immune from antitrust scrutiny under the state action doctrine of Parker v. BrownSearch
-
the opinion of the Court. The question presented in this case is whether the state action doctrine of Parker v. BrownSearch
-
We now reverse. II In Parker v. BrownSearch
-
also apply in certain suits against private parties. See, e.g., Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
should be deemed state action, and thus shielded from the antitrust laws. See California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. MidcalSearch
-
Id. at 445 U. S. 105 , quoting Lafayette v. LouisianaSearch
-
California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. MidcalSearch
-
Aluminum, Inc., supra, at 445 U. S. 105 , quoting Lafayette v. LouisianaSearch
-
Hallie v. EauSearch
-
ultimate control over the challenged anticompetitive conduct. Cf. Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
Parker v. BrownSearch
-
by a state board). The mere presence of some state involvement or monitoring does not suffice. See 324 Liquor Corp. v. DuffySearch
-
state supervision over private parties have involved administrative agencies, see, e.g., 471 U. S. Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 48 (1985), or State Supreme Courts with agency-like responsibilities over the organized bar, see Bates v. StateSearch
-
expressly did not decide, that a complaining physician was entitled to the kind of review he requested. See Straube v. EmanuelSearch
-
Huffaker v. BaileySearch
-
Straube v. EmanuelSearch
-
questions presented in a petition for certiorari that have not been considered by the lower court. See, e.g., Youakim v. MillerSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Patrick v. BurgetSearch
-
of Parker v. BrownSearch
-
II In Parker v. BrownSearch
-
Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
See California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. MidcalSearch
-
Lafayette v. LouisianaSearch
-
Cf. Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
Liquor Corp. v. DuffySearch
-
U. S. Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
Bates v. StateSearch
-
See Straube v. EmanuelSearch
-
Youakim v. MillerSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial