Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBowman, Ward
dc.date2021-11-25T13:34:41.000
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-26T11:44:47Z
dc.date.available2021-11-26T11:44:47Z
dc.date.issued1967-01-01T00:00:00-08:00
dc.identifierfss_papers/4243
dc.identifier.contextkey4158817
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/3715
dc.description.abstractThe Supreme Court shows a growing determination in its antitrust decisions to convert laws designed to promote competition into laws which regulate or hamper the competitive process. Succeeding interpretations of the Clayton and Robinson-Patman Acts–and, by infectious contamination, the Sherman Act–demonstrate an increasingly apparent disregard for the central purpose of antitrust, the promotion of consumer welfare through the promotion of a competitive market process. Now, in Utah Pie Co. v. Continental Baking Co., the Supreme Court has used section 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act to strike directly at price competition itself.
dc.titleRestraint of Trade by the Supreme Court: The Utah Pie Case
dc.source.journaltitleFaculty Scholarship Series
refterms.dateFOA2021-11-26T11:44:47Z
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4243
dc.identifier.legacyfulltexthttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5245&context=fss_papers&unstamped=1


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
77YaleLJ70.pdf
Size:
757.6Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record