Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Ftc Vs. Superior Ct. Tla

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 01, 1990

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

68 entries 3 linked 65 unlinked
Show
  1. Frisby Vs. Schultz US Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1988
  2. Naacp Vs. Button US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1963
  3. United States Vs. Albertini US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1985
  4. FTC v. Superior
    Search
  5. Ct. TLA - 493 U.S. 411 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court FTC v. Superior
    Search
  6. Ct. TLA, 493 U.S. 411 (1990) Federal Trade Commission v. Superior
    Search
  7. that it contained an element of expression warranting First Amendment protection and that, under United States v. O'Brien
    Search
  8. Nor is respondents' agreement outside the coverage of the antitrust laws under Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr
    Search
  9. are genuinely intended to influence the government to agree to the conspirators' terms. Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian
    Search
  10. U. S. 421-425. 2. Respondents' boycott is not immunized from antitrust regulation by NAACP v. Claiborne
    Search
  11. legislative change, it was exempt from the antitrust laws under our decision in Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr
    Search
  12. and that it was a form of political action protected by the First Amendment under our decision in NAACP v. Claiborne
    Search
  13. intended to convey a political message to the public at large. It therefore concluded that, under United States v. O'Brien
    Search
  14. of the FTC Act. See FTC v. Cement
    Search
  15. on price and output. See National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Board
    Search
  16. National Soc. of Professional Engineers v. United
    Search
  17. is no excuse that the prices fixed are themselves reasonable. See, e.g., United States v. Trenton
    Search
  18. United States v. Trans-Missouri
    Search
  19. Catalano, Inc. v. Target
    Search
  20. Indeed, respondents' theory of Noerr was largely disposed of by our opinion in Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian
    Search
  21. wished to propose that price as an appropriate level for governmental ratemaking or price supports. But see Georgia v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  22. that they are genuinely intended to influence the government to agree to the conspirators' terms. But see Georgia v. Evans
    Search
  23. Sherman Act and the Federal Trade Act, it is nonetheless protected by the First.Amendment rights recognized in NAACP v. Claiborne
    Search
  24. Allied Tube Corp. v. Indian
    Search
  25. applies with special force when a clear objective of the boycott is to economically advantage the participants. v. Respondents'
    Search
  26. Page 493 U. S. 429 FTC's petition to this Court. The Court of Appeals derived its exception from United States v. O'Brien
    Search
  27. test, even if making an exception to the rule in a particular case might cause no serious damage. United States v. Albertini
    Search
  28. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. United
    Search
  29. Arizona v. Maricopa
    Search
  30. As Justice Douglas observed in an oft-quoted footnote to his United States v. Socony-Vacuum
    Search
  31. See United States v. Cullen
    Search
  32. regulation, even though such regulation may have an incidental effect on rights of speech and association. See Giboney v. Empire
    Search
  33. NLRB v. Retail
    Search
  34. business entities to 'associate' to suppress competition may be curtailed. National Society of Professional Engineers v. United
    Search
  35. Store Employees, supra, at 447 U. S. 617 -618 (BLACKMUN, J., concurring in part). See Longshoremen v. Allied
    Search
  36. In our opinion in Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde
    Search
  37. the costs of determining whether the particular case at bar involves anticompetitive conduct. See, e.g., Arizona v. Maricopa
    Search
  38. see Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde
    Search
  39. Fair Housing v. Berkeley
    Search
  40. U.S.App.D.C. 272, 295, 856 F.2d 226, 249 (quoting United States v. O'Brien
    Search
  41. Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE
    Search
  42. United States v. Topco
    Search
  43. Ward v. Rock
    Search
  44. to the state's interest. See Board of Trustees of the State University of New York v. Fox
    Search
  45. U. S. 415 , 371 U. S. 438 (1963). In Speiser v. Randall
    Search
  46. theory. See The Florida Star v. B.J
    Search
  47. its participants into a single monopolistic entity that restricts supply and increases price. See, e.g., FTC v. Indiana
    Search
  48. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Board
    Search
  49. Ante at 493 U. S. 430 (citing United States v. Albertini
    Search
  50. U.S. Supreme Court FTC v. Superior
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial