Restoring Effective Enforcement of the Anti-trust Laws: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Monopolies and Commercial Law of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Ninety-sixth Congress, First Session, on H.R. 2060 and H.R 2204 and Other Proposals ... February 27, March 7, and April 10, 1979 |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
alleged amendment amount antitrust enforcement antitrust laws Antitrust Litigation antitrust violations attorneys behalf Butler bill cause of action chain of distribution Chairman RODINO chasers civil penalty claimants claims class action Clayton Act committee complex Congress conspiracy consumers cost counsel defendant derivative suit deterrence direct purchasers duplicative liability duplicative recovery effect fact federal fees filed Hanover Shoe HUGHES Illinois Brick Co Illinois Brick decision indirect sellers injured involved issue Judiciary Justice lawsuit legislation litigation manufacturers MAZZOLI ment monopoly natural persons overcharge parens patriae actions parties pass-on defense passed passing-on pending permit plaintiffs price-fixing private antitrust problems procedural proof proposed quasi in rem question RAILSBACK reason recover remedy represent result retail bakeries retroactive rule SEIBERLING Senate settlement SHENEFIELD Sherman Act statement statute STEIN Subcommittee sugar suit sumers supplier Supreme Court testimony Thank tion treble damage trial United VOLKMER Westvaco windfall
Popular passages
Page 133 - That any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found or has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee.
Page 292 - gist of the question of standing" is whether the party seeking relief has "alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.
Page 251 - The Sherman Act was designed to be a comprehensive charter of economic liberty, aimed at preserving free and unfettered competition as the rule of trade. It rests on the premise that the unrestrained interaction of competitive forces will yield the best allocation of our economic resources, the lowest prices, the highest quality, and the greatest material progress, while at the same time providing an environment conducive to the preservation of our democratic political and social institutions.
Page 465 - In order to fall within § 2, the monopolist must have both the power to monopolize and the intent to monopolize. To read the passage as demanding any "specific" intent makes nonsense of it, for no monopolist monopolizes unconscious of what he is doing.
Page 383 - The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more industrious and less informed part of the community.
Page 429 - A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest...
Page 390 - Second, it has been stressed that "we must * * * weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation.
Page 483 - Radiant Burners, Inc. v Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co. 364 US 656, 660, 5 L ed 2d 358, 361, 81 S Ct 365; Klor's, Inc.
Page 172 - For and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration...
Page 465 - It is not the form of the combination or the particular means used but the result to be achieved that the statute condemns. It is not of importance whether the means used to accomplish the unlawful objective are in themselves lawful or unlawful.