Coconspirators can't be told to pay price fixing damages

Cohen, Dorothy
October 1981
Marketing News;10/2/1981, Vol. 15 Issue 7, p12
Trade Publication
Focuses on the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Texas Industries versus Radcliff Industries, which argued on the payment of price fixing damages required from coconspirators. Background on the case; Potential impact of sharing damage liability on the objectives of antitrust laws; Arguments being offered by proponents of the right of contribution.


Related Articles

  • Protecting Municipalities From Looming Antitrust Suits. Pouzar, Edward A. // Risk Management (00355593);Sep84, Vol. 31 Issue 9, p20 

    This article suggests ways of protecting municipalities from antitrust suits in light of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Community Communications Co. Inc. (CCC) v. City of Boulder, Colorado, et al. The Supreme Court's antitrust ruling, in CCC v. City of Boulder is the first major challenge for...

  • Supreme Court ruling slowly bears fruit for wineries.  // Buffalo Law Journal;1/30/2006, Vol. 78 Issue 9, p16 

    The article offers news briefs on legal issues in the U.S. as of January 30, 2006. A decision was made by the U.S. Supreme Court on a case that would allow wineries to ship directly to in-state consumers. Chief Justice John Roberts comments on the arguments for violation of antitrust laws and...

  • Justice Department limits appeals to Supreme Court. Duggan, Michael // Marketing News;10/1/1982, Vol. 16 Issue 7, p19 

    The article reports on the decision of the U.S. Department of Justice to reduce its seeking of Supreme Court guidance for theories on antitrust enforcement. An overview of cases taken by the department to the court for determination, wherein each instance significant antitrust policy was either...

  • High Court Antitrust Trend Continues - Two New Cases Granted. Marcinko, Jeny M.; Smith, W. Stephen // Venulex Legal Summaries;2006 Q4, p1 

    The article deals with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to hear appeals of two antitrust cases, namely, Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS Inc. and Credit Suisse First Boston Ltd. v. Billing. The Leegin case challenges the "per se" rule against vertical minimum price fixing. The...

  • Beyond Zelman: Reinventing Neighborhood Schools. Salyer, Kenneth O'Neil // Journal of Law & Education;Apr2004, Vol. 33 Issue 2, p283 

    Provides an overview of the monumental court cases that led to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Zelman versus Simmons-Harris. Legal history of the public school system; Discussion of the policy surrounding Zelman; Background information on neighborhood schools, another alternative to...

  • NEWS BRIEFS: Supreme Court, supreme injustice.  // Body Politic;Nov77, Issue 38, p5 

    Reports on the refusal by the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on a State of Washington legal decision that a teacher could be fired because he is gay. Views of the Supreme Court on homosexual foreigners.

  • The Supreme Court of the United States.  // Congressional Digest;Oct26, Vol. 5 Issue 10, p282 

    The article presents brief non-technical review of current decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court which are of general public interest. The Supreme Court of the U.S. convened in annual session on October 4, 1926 and this term of the court will continue until June 1927. The 36 weeks of the annual...

  • U.S. Supreme Court issues opinion in "Hood" case.  // Commercial Law Bulletin;May/Jun2004, Vol. 19 Issue 3, p27 

    Presents the judicial opinion on the court decision in the lawsuit filed by Hood against Tennessee Student Assistance Corp. by the U.S. Supreme Court. Overview of the lawsuit; Refusal of the court to dismiss the complaint; Analysis of the decision of the court.

  • UNREASONABLE SEIZURE? Hottel, Deborah A. // South Carolina Business Journal;Aug2005, Vol. 24 Issue 8, p4 

    The article states that in June 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court issued the decision in "Kelo v. City of New London," No. 04-108, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5011 upholding the city's condemnation of property for downtown revitalization. The Court found the proposed development qualified as a "public use"...


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics