Citation network
Ftc Vs. Ticor Title Ins. Co.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 12, 1992
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
-
FTC v. TicorSearch
-
Title Ins. Co. - 504 U.S. 621 (1992) October Term, 1991 Syllabus Federal Trade Commission V. TicorSearch
-
and Montana, respondents' anticompetitive activities were entitled to state-action immunity, as contemplated in Parker v. BrownSearch
-
active supervision of anticompetitive conduct undertaken by private actors. California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. MidcalSearch
-
supra, at 103-105. This Court's decision in Southern Motor Carriers Rate Con- 623 ference, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
assert is state-action immunity from antitrust prosecution, as contemplated in the line of cases beginning with Parker v. BrownSearch
-
beyond the reach of the antitrust laws. Mine Workers v. PenningtonSearch
-
Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. NoerrSearch
-
anticompetitive conduct if authorized and supervised by state officials. See California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. MidcalSearch
-
Parker v. BrownSearch
-
respondents from resuming the conduct challenged by the Commission. Id., at 246a-247a. See United States v. W TSearch
-
for stateaction immunity under the antitrust laws, the test we set out in California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. MidcalSearch
-
disagreed with the Commission, adopting the approach of the First Circuit in New England Motor Rate Bureau, Inc. v. FTCSearch
-
and of a system of free enterprise without price fixing or cartels is essential to economic freedom. United States v. TopcoSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
to subject discrete parts of the economy to additional regulations and controls. Against this background, in Parker v. BrownSearch
-
the later evolution and application of the Parker doctrine in our decisions in Midcal, supra, and Patrick v. BurgetSearch
-
the requirement of active supervision had not been met. Ibid. The rationale was further elaborated in Patrick v. BurgetSearch
-
regulate its public utilities without authorizing monopolization in the market for electric light bulbs. See Cantor v. DetroitSearch
-
So we have held that state-action immunity is disfavored, much as are repeals by implication. Lafayette v. LouisianaSearch
-
F. 2d, at 1136, quoting New England Motor Rate Bureau, Inc. v. FTCSearch
-
limited. See Patrick, 486 U. S., at 103-105. Our decision in Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
ratemaking hearings on a consistent basis, using the industry submissions as the beginning point. See United States v. SouthernSearch
-
imprimatur in form and agency inaction in fact. No antitrust offense is more pernicious than price fixing. FTC v. SuperiorSearch
-
of state or local regulation is required to achieve ends other than the establishment of uniform prices. Cf. Columbia v. OmniSearch
-
us a case in which governmental actors made unilateral decisions without participation by private actors. Cf. Fisher v. BerkeleySearch
-
without complete control, or in which there was an infrequent lapse of state supervision. Cf. 324 Liquor Corp. v. DuffySearch
-
context, but even in a context such as that involved in Patrick v. BurgetSearch
-
and because I am skeptical about the Parker v. BrownSearch
-
I dissent. Immunity from antitrust liability under the state-action doctrine was first established in Parker v. BrownSearch
-
Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
developed our present analysis for state-action immunity for private actors in California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. MidcalSearch
-
requirement was announced in Patrick v. BurgetSearch
-
more need not be established.''' 922 F.2d 1122 , 1136 (CA3 1991), quoting New England Motor Rate Bureau, Inc. v. FTCSearch
-
requirement for immunity based on state action. But the test used by the Court of Appeals is 2 In 324 Liquor Corp. v. DuffySearch
-
by wholesalers. The New York statute, like the California statute at issue in California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. MidcalSearch
-
formulation in Patrick v. BurgetSearch
-
Hallie v. EauSearch
-
allowing more resources to be expended on each filing. 3 The state regulatory programs in Midcal, supra, Patrick v. BurgetSearch
-
under the test adopted by the Court of Appeals. 645 Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
conduct would application of a less detailed active supervision test change the result. In Pat rick v. BurgetSearch
-
in Cantor v. DetroitSearch
-
Syllabus Federal Trade Commission V. TicorSearch
-
California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. MidcalSearch
-
Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
Mine Workers v. PenningtonSearch
-
See California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. MidcalSearch
-
See United States v. W TSearch
-
New England Motor Rate Bureau, Inc. v. FTCSearch
-
United States v. TopcoSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial