Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query antitrust returned 35 results.

	POSTAL SERVICE V. FLAMINGO INDUSTRIES (USA) LTD. [Syllabus] The federal antitrust laws apply to a person, which is defined to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of * * * the United States. 15 U.S.C.7 (sherman Act), 12 (a) (Clayton Act). The question presented is whether the United States Postal Service is a person amenable to suit under the antitrust laws.
	CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC V. BILLING [Syllabus]
	BROWN V. PRO FOOTBALL, INC.., 518 U.S. 231 (1996) [Syllabus]
	PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. LINKLINECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. [Syllabus]
	VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. LAW OFFICESOF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP [Syllabus] 1. Whether allegations of inadequacies in a monopolist's affirmative assistance to its rivals, including resellers—as newly provided by incumbent local telephone companies under the Telecommunications Act of 1996—state a claim for unlawful unilateral predatory conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman Act 2. Whether antitrust and Communications Act standing extends to indirect purchasers, I.e., the customers of the defendant's customer, asserting injuries wholly derivative of the direct customer's injury, even when invoking only the direct customer's legal rights.
	KANSAS ET AL. V UTILICORP UNITED, INC., 497 U.S. 199 (1990) [Syllabus]
	BE&K CONSTR. CO. V. NLRB [Syllabus] Respondent National Labor Relations Board lacked authority to find that petitioner violated federal labor law by prosecuting against respondent unions an unsuccessful lawsuit with a retaliatory motive.
	LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. V.PSKS, INC. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	STATE OIL CO. V. KHAN, 522 U.S. 3 (1997) [Syllabus]
	F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD. V. EMPAGRAN S.A. [Syllabus] (1) Whether under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982 (FTAIA), 15 U.S.C. § 6a, the Sherman Act applies to claims of foreign plaintiffs whose injuries do not arise from the effects of antitrust violations on United States commerce? (2) Whether such foreign plaintiffs lack antitrust standing under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15(a)?
	KLEHR ET UX. V. A. O. SMITH CORP., 117 S.CT. 1984, 138 L.ED.2D 373 (1997). [Syllabus]
	BELL ATLANTIC CORP. V. TWOMBLY [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	INTEL CORP. V. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	SMALL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	STOLT-NIELSEN S. A. V. ANIMALFEEDS INTL CORP. [Syllabus]
	VOLVO TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. REEDER-SIMCO GMC, INC. [Syllabus]
	NYNEX CORP. V. DISCON, INC. [Syllabus]
	GLICKMAN V. WILEMAN BROTHERS & ELLIOTT, INC., 117 S.CT. 2130, 138 L.ED.2D (1997) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. UNITED FOODS, INC. [Syllabus] The Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act's requirement that fresh mushroom handlers pay assessments used primarily to fund advertising promoting mushroom sales violates the First Amendment.
	[Syllabus]
	ASHCROFT V. IQBAL [Syllabus]
	AMERICAN NEEDLE, INC. V. NATIONALFOOTBALL LEAGUE [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. V. F.C.C., 520 U.S. 180 (1997) [Syllabus]
	WEYERHAEUSER CO. V. ROSS-SIMMONS HARDWOODLUMBER CO. [Syllabus]
	CEDRIC KUSHNER PROMOTIONS, LTD. V. KING [Syllabus] The RICO provision forbidding "any person employed by or associated with any enterprise . . . to conduct or participate . . . in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity," 18 U. S. C. §1962(c), applies when a corporate employee unlawfully conducts the affairs of the corporation of which he is the sole owner-whether he conducts those affairs within the scope, or beyond the scope, of corporate authority.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	TEXACO, INC. V. HASBROUCK, 496 U.S. 543 (1990) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]