Applied Antitrust Law

Dale Collins
NYU School of Law
Georgetown University Law Center

NB: "±" indicates that the hyperlink will take you to another site.

 

Home page
Topical index
Case studies index

1. Introduction to Price Fixing

 

3. Criminal Prosecutions

 

 

2. Early Foundations

 

Reading and class notes
Significant precedents
Reference materials

 
Primary Materials
Supplemental Materials

Reading and Class Notes

Reading and class notes

Unit 2 reading

No class notes

 

Significant Precedents

Common law cases—English

Darcy v. Allen, (1602) 11 Co. 846, 77 Eng. Rep. 1260 (K.B.)

± James I, Book of Bounty (1610)

± An Act concerning Monopolies and Dispensations with Penal Laws, and the Forfeitures thereof, 21 Jac. I, c.3 (1624) (Statute of Monopolies)

± 3 Coke, Institutes 85 ("Against Monopolists, Propounders, and Projectors")

± Dyer's Case, Y.B. 2 Hen. 5, fol. 5, Pasch, pl. 26 (1414) (Eng.)

Rogers v. Parrey, (1613) 2 Bulstr. 136, 80 Eng. Rep. 1012 (K.B.)

Mitchel v. Reynolds, (1711) 1 P. Wms. 181, 24 Eng. Rep. 347 (K.B.)

Horner v. Graves, (1831) 7 Bing. 735, 131 Eng. Rep. 284 (C.P.)

Davis v. Davis, [1887] 36 Ch.D. 359

Nordenfelt v. Maxim Nordenfelt Guns & Ammunition Co., [1894] A.C.. 535 (H.L.)

± Wayne D. Collins, Trusts and the Origins of Antitrust Legislation, 81 Fordham L. Rev. 2279 (2013).

Donald Dewey, The Common Law Background of Antitrust Policy, 41 Va. L. Rev. 759 (1955).

William L. Letwin, The English Common Law Concerning Monopolies, 21 U. Chi. L. Rev. 355 (1954).

Harold G. Fox, Monopolies and Patents: A Study of the History and Future of the Patent Monopoly (1947).

Common law cases—American

Richardson v. Buhl, 43 N.W. 1102 (Mich. 1889)

 

Pre-Sherman Act statute statutes
 

Iowa: Act of April 16, 1888, ch. 84, 1888 Iowa Acts 124

Kansas: Act of March 9, 1889, ch. 257, 1889 Kan. Sess. Laws 389

Maine: Act of March 7, 1889, ch. 266, 1889 Me. Laws 235

North Carolina: Act of March 11, 1889, ch. 374, 1889 N.C. Sess. Laws 372

Nebraska: Act of March 29, 1889, ch. 69, 1889 Neb. Laws 516

Texas: Act of March 30, 1889, ch. 117, 1889 Tex. Gen. Laws 141

Tennessee: Act of April 6, 1889, ch. 250, 1889 Tenn. Acts 475

Missouri: Act of May 18, 1889, 1889 Mo. Laws 96

Michigan: Act of July 1, 1889, no. 225, 1889 Mich. Pub. Acts 331

Mississippi: Act of February 22, 1890, ch. 36, 1890 Miss. Laws 55

North Dakota: Act of March 3, 1890, ch. 174, 1890 N.D. Laws 503

South Dakota: Act of March 7, 1890, ch. 154, 1890 S.D. Sess. Laws 323

Kentucky: Act of May 20, 1890, ch. 1621, 1890 Ky. Acts 143

Passage of the Sherman Act

Act of July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209 (1890) (Sherman Act)

Current version blacklined against the original Sherman Act

Legislative history

See generally ± Bills and Debates in Congress Relating to Trusts, S. Doc. No. 57-147 (1903) (50th Congress to 57th Congress)

50th Congress, 2d Session (Dec. 3, 1888, to Mar. 4, 1889)

Senate Resolution Directing the Committee on Finance to Inquire into Control of Trust in Connection with Revenue Bills, 50th Cong., 1st Sess. (July 10, 1888), reprinted in 19 Cong. Rec. 6041 (July 10, 1888)

19 Cong. Rec. 7512 (Aug. 14, 1888) (including exchange between Senators Sherman, Reagan, and Beck over the referral of Reagan's bill S. 3440 to the Judiciary, Commerce, or Finance Committees)

S. 3440, 50th Cong. (1st Sess. 1888) (as introduced by Sen. Reagan on August 14, 1888)

S. 3445, 50th Cong. (1st Sess. 1888) (as introduced by Sen. Sherman on August 14, 1888)

19 Cong. Rec. 8483 (Sept. 11, 1888) (reporting S. 3445 with an amendment in the nature of a substitute)

S. 3445, 50th Cong. (2d Sess. 1888) (as reported by the Senate Finance Committee on September 11, 1888)

19 Cong. Rec. 8519 (Sept. 12, 1888) (including amendments proposed by George to S. 3445)

19 Cong. Rec. 8559 (Sept. 13, 1888)

20 Cong. Rec. 1120 (Jan. 23, 1889)
20 Cong. Rec. 1167 (Jan. 25, 1889)

S. 3445, 50th Cong. (2d Sess. 1888) (as amended during the Senate floor debate and printed on January 25, 1889)

20 Cong. Rec. 1457 (Feb. 4, 1889)

51st Congress, 1st Session (Dec. 2, 1889, to Oct. 1, 1890)

21 Cong. Rec. 96-97 (Dec. 4, 1889)

S. 1, 51st Cong. (1st Sess 1889) (as introduced by Sen. Sherman on December 4, 1889)

S. 6, 51st Cong. (1st Sess 1889) (as introduced by Sen. George on December 4, 1889)

S. 62, 51st Cong. (1st Sess 1889) (as introduced by Sen. Reagan on December 4, 1889)

S. 1, 51st Cong. (1st Sess. 1890) (as reported by the Senate Finance Committee on January 14, 1890)

21 Cong. Rec. 1765 (Feb. 27, 1890)

S. 1, 51st Cong. (1st Sess. 1890) (as reported by the Senate Finance Committee on March 18, 1890)

Blackline to Senate Finance Committee January 14, 1890, version

21 Cong. Rec. 2455 (Mar, 21, 1890)
21 Cong. Rec. 2556 (Mar. 24, 1890)

21 Cong. Rec. 2597 (Mar. 25, 1890)

S. 1, 51st Cong. (1st Sess. 1890) (as amended during the Senate floor debate and printed on March 25, 1890)

21 Cong. Rec. 2639 (Mar. 26, 1890)

S. 1, 51st Cong. (1st Sess. 1890) (as amended during the Senate floor debate and printed on March 26, 1890)

21 Cong. Rec. 2723 (Mar. 27, 1890)

Referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on March 27, 1890

S. Comm. on the Judiciary, Minute Book 226-33 (Mar. 31 - April 2, 1890)

S. 1, 51st Cong. (1st Sess. 1890) (as reported by the Judiciary Committee on April 2, 1890)

 

H.R. Rep. No. 51-1701 (Apr. 25, 1890) (to accompany S.1)

Commentary

Hans Thorelli, The Federal Antitrust Policy (1955).

William L. Letwin, Law and Economic Policy in America: The Evolution of the Sherman Antitrust Act (1965).

± George F. Edmunds, The Interstate Trust and Commerce Act of 1890, N. Am. Rev., 801 (1911).

± Albert H. Walker, History of the Sherman Law of the United States of America (1910)

The Expediting Act

The Expediting Act, Act of Feb. 11, 1903, ch. 544, 32 Stat. 823 (1903) (current version at 15 U.S.C. § 29)

Click here for case materials

 

Early horizontal price-fixing cases

United States v. E.C. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1 (1895)

Supreme Court Voting Record In Antitrust Cases 1895-1911

Certificate of Incorporation, American Sugar Refining Company (New Jersey filed Jan. 9, 1891)

District court

Bill of Complaint, United States v. E.C. Knight Co., Civ. No. 38 (C.C.E.D. Pa. filed Mar. 2, 1892) (Sugar Trust) (Blue Book No. 4) (National Archives copy)

Docket sheet

dismissed, United States v. E.C. Knight Co.. Civ. No. 38 (C.C.E.D. Pa. Jan. 30, 1894) (reported at 60 F. 306)

Third Circuit

aff’d, 60 F. 934 (3d Cir. 1894)

Supreme Court

Transcript of Record (Index)

aff’d, 156 U.S. 1 (1895).

Commentary

Charles W. McCurdy, The Knight Sugar Decision of 1895 and the Modernization of American Corporation Law, 1869-1903, 53 Bus. Hist. Rev. 304 (1979).

 

United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n, 166 U.S. 290 (1897)

 

District court

Complaint, United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n, Civ. 6799 (C.C.D. Kan. filed Jan. 6, 1892) (Blue Book No. 2) (transcript of record printed version)

Docket sheet

Memorandum of Opinion, United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n, Civ. 6799 (C.C.D. Kan. Nov. 28, 1892) (dismissing petition) (reported at 53 F. 440)

Decree (C.C.D. Kan. Nov. 28, 1892), reprinted in Decrees and Judgments in Federal Anti-Trust Cases, July 2, 1890-January 1, 1918, at 5 (Roger Shale ed., 1918).

Petition for Appeal (Dec. 19, 1892)

Eight Circuit

Assignment of Errors (Dec. 19, 1892)

aff'd 58 F. 58 (8th Cir. 1893)

Mandate (Dec. 14, 1893)

Supreme Court

Transcript of Record (Index)

rev'd, 166 U.S. 290 (1897)

On remand

Decree, United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n, Civ. 6799 (C.C.D. Kan. June 7, 1897), reprinted in Decrees and Judgments in Federal Anti-Trust Cases, July 2, 1890-January 1, 1918, at 5 (Roger Shale ed., 1918).

 

United States v. Joint Traffic Ass'n, 171 U.S. 505 (1898)

District court

Complaint, United States v. Joint Traffic Ass'n, Eq. No. 6229 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. filed Jan. 8, 1896) (Blue Book No. 13) (print version)

Docket sheet

United States v. Joint Traffic Ass'n, Eq. No. 6229 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. May 28, 1896) (dismissing petition) (reported at 76  F. 895)

Decree (C.C.S.D.N.Y. June 12, 1896) (printed version)

Second Circuit

aff'd, 89 F. 1020 (2d Cir. Mar. 19, 1897)

Supreme Court

Transcript of Record (Index)

rev'd, United States v. Joint Traffic Ass'n, 171 U.S. 505 (Oct. 24, 1898)

Mandate (Oct. 24, 1898)

On remand

Decree, United States v. Joint Traffic Ass'n, Eq. No. 6229 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 1899) (enjoining challenged practices) (printed version)

 

United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., 85 Fed. 271 (6th Cir. 1898) (Taft, J.), modified and aff'd, 175 U.S. 211 (1899)

District court

Petition, United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., Civ. No. 539 (C.C.E.D. Tenn. filed Dec. 10, 1896) (Blue Book No. 14)

Record

United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., 78 F. 712 (C.C.E.D. Tenn. Feb. 5, 1897) (dismissing petition)

Final decree (Feb. 12, 1897) (dismissing petition)

Sixth Circuit

rev'd, 85 F. 271 (6th Cir. Feb. 5, 1898) (Taft, J.),

Final Decree, United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., Civ. No. 539 (C.C.E.D. Tenn. June 16, 1898) (enjoining challenged practices)

Supreme Court

Transcript of Record (Index)

modified and aff'd, United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., 175 U.S. 211 (Dec. 4, 1899)

On remand

Final Decree, United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., Civ. No. 539 (C.C.E.D. Tenn. June 5, 1900) (enjoining challenged practices)

 
 

Act of Feb. 14, 1903, ch. 552, § 6, 32 Stat. 825, 827 (1903) (creating the Bureau of Corporations)

 

Northern Sec. Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197 (1904)

District court

Petition, United States v. Northern Sec. Co., Eq. 789 (C.C.D. Minn. filed Mar. 10, 1902) (Blue Book No. 19)

Docket sheet

United v. Northern Sec. Co., 120 F. 721 (C.C.D. Minn. Apr 09, 1903)  (finding combination illegal)

Final Decree, United States v. Northern Sec. Co., Eq. 789 C.C.D. Minn. Apr. 9, 1903)

Supreme Court

Transcript of Record (Index)

Brief for the United States (Dec. 14, 1903)

Oral argument of the Attorney-General of the United States

aff'd, Northern Sec. Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197 (Mar. 14, 1904)

Commentary

± Balthasar H. Meyer, A History of the Northern Securities Case (Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin, No. 142, 1906)

 

Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911)

 

District court

Bill of Complaint, United States v. Standard Oil Co., Eq. 5371 (C.C.E.D. Mo. filed Nov. 15, 1906) (Blue Book No. 41)

United States v. Standard Oil Co., 173 F. 177 (C.C.E.D. Mo. Nov. 20, 1909) (finding combination illegal and ordering dissolution)

Decree, United States v. Standard Oil Co., Eq. 5371 (C.C.E.D. Mo. Nov. 20, 1909)

Supreme Court

Index to Transcript of Record (Vol. A)
Index to Petitioner's Testimony
Index to Defendants' Testimony

Oral Argument of the Attorney General on Behalf of the United States
Oral Argument of Frank B. Kellogg for the United States

Argument of John G. Milburn, on behalf of the appellants

aff'd, Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (May 15, 1911) (with minor modifications)

Supplemental Decree, United States v. Standard Oil Co., Eq. 5371 (C.C.E.D. Mo. July 29, 1911)

Commentary

James May, The Story of Standard Oil Co. v. United States, in Antitrust Stories 7 (Eleanor M. Fox & Daniel A. Crane eds., 2007).

F.M. Scherer, Standard Oil as a Technological Innovator (HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP11-008, Jan. 2011).

 

United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U.S. 106 (1911)

District court

Petition, United States v. American Tobacco Co., Eq. 1-216 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. filed July 19, 1907) (Blue Book No. 49)

Attorney' General's Certificate of Public Importance (Mar. 26, 1908)

United States v. American Tobacco Co., 164 F. 700 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 1908) (dismissing some defendants and holding combination illegal as to remaining defendants)

Decree, United States v. American Tobacco Co., 164 F. 1024 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 1908)

Supreme Court

Index to Transcript of Record

Argument

Oral Argument for the American Tobacco Company and others (Jan. 1910)

Argument of the Attorney General on Behalf of the United States (Jan. 1910)

Reargument

Oral Argument for the American Tobacco Company and others (Jan. 9, 10 and 11, 1911)

Concluding Argument of the Attorney General on Behalf of the United States (Jan. 12, 1911)

rev'd, United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U.S. 106 (May 29, 1911)

On remand

Decree on the Mandate from the Supreme Court of the United States, United States v. American Tobacco Co., Eq. 1-216 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 1911)

Decree, United States v. American Tobacco Co., Eq. 1-216 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 1911) (reported at 191 F. 371)

Commentary

 

Other sources

± Legacy Tobacco Documents Library (University of Califronia, San Francisco)

Passage of the Clayton Act

Act of Oct. 15, 1914, ch. 323, 38 Stat. 730 (Oct. 15, 1914)

 
 

United States v. Trenton Potteries Co., 273 U.S. 392 (1927)

District court

Indictment, United States v. Trenton Potteries Co., No. Cr. 32-566 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 1922) (Blue Book No. 259) (printed)

Docket sheet

Judgment, United States v. Trenton Potteries Co., No. Cr. 32-566 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 1923)

Second Circuit

rev’d, United States v. Trenton Potteries Co., 300 F. 550 (2d Cir. 1924)

Supreme Court

Transcript of Record (Index)

Brief for the United States (Nov. 9, 1926)

Brief for Respondents (Nov. 22, 1926)

Reply Brief for the United States (____)

rev’d and reinstatied convictions, United States v. Trenton Potteries Co., 273 U.S. 392 (1927)

 

Appalachian Coals, Inc. v. United States, 288 U.S. 344 (1933)

District court

Petition, Appalachian Coals, Inc. v. United States, Eq. 1 (W.D. Va. filed June 29, 1932) (Blue Book No. 383)

Appalachian Coals, Inc. v. United States, 1 F. Supp. 339 (W.D. Va. Oct. 3, 1932)

Decree, Appalachian Coals, Inc. v. United States, Eq. 1 (W.D. Va. Oct. 17, 1932)

Supreme Court

Transcript of Record (Index)

Brief for Appellants (Dec. 19, 1932)

Amicus Brief of the Cotton Textile Institute, Inc., Window Glass Manufacturers' Ass'n, and National Lumber Manufacturers Ass'n (Jan. 1, 1933)

Brief for the United States (Jan. 7, 1933)

rev'd, Appalachian Coals, Inc. v. United States, 288 U.S. 344 (1933) (remanded with instructions to dismiss wthe petition with prejudice and to retain jurisdiction with the power to set aside the decree if in actual operation the challenged arrangment prove to be anticompetitive)

On remand

Decree, Appalachian Coals, Inc. v. United States, Eq. 1 (W.D. Va. Mar. 29, 1933)

 

United States v. Socony Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150 (1940)

 

"Hot oil" indictments

Indictment, Standard Oil Co. (Indiana), Cr. 11296 (W.D. Wis. July 28, 1936)

Indictment, Standard Oil Co. (Indiana), Cr. 11365 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 22, 1936)

Jobber restriction indictments

Indictment, United States v. Socony Vacuum Oil Co., Cr. 11342 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 6, 1936)

Indictment, United States v. Socony Vacuum Oil Co., Cr. 11364 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 22, 1936)

Commentary

± Daniel A. Crane, The Story of United States v. Socony-Vacuum: Hot Oil and Antitrust in the Two New Deals (Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 173, 2006), final version published in Antitrust Stories 91 (Eleanor M. Fox & Daniel A. Crane eds., 2007).

D. Bruce Johnsen, Property Rights to Cartel Rents: The Socony-Vacuum Story, 34 J.L. & Econ. 177 (1991).

 

Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U.S. 219 (1948)

Case history

 

 

Commentary

 

United States v. National Ass'n of Real Estate Boards, 339 U.S. 485 (1950)

District court

Complaint, United States v. National Ass'n of Real Estate Boards, Civ. No. 3472-47 (D.D.C. filed Aug. 27, 1947) (Blue Book No. 902)

Indictment, United States v. National Ass'n of Real Estate Boards, Cr. 950-47 (D.D.C. returned Aug. 27, 1947) (Blue book No. 903)

United States v. National Ass'n of Real Estate Boards, 84 F.Supp. 802 (D.D.C. June 28, 1949) (holding for defendants)

Supreme Court

aff'd in part, rev'd in part, United States v. National Ass'n of Real Estate Boards, 339 U.S. 485 (1950)

On remand

Decree, United States v. National Ass'n of Real Estate Boards, Cr. 950-47 (D.D.C. Oct. 4, 1950)

Commentary

 

Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States, 394 U.S. 131 (1969) (± Oyez)

District court

Complaint, Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States, Civ. A. No. 1969 (D. Ariz. Jan. 4, 1965) (Blue Book No. 1843)

United States v. Citizen Pub. Co., 280 F. Supp. 978 (D. Ariz. Jan 31, 1968) (finding for the government and ordering dissolution of the merger)

Supreme Court

aff'd, Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States, 394 U.S. 131 (1969)

On remand

Amended Order, Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States, 1970 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 72,730 (D. Ariz. Jan. 26, 1970)

Commentary

More modern cases

National Soc'y of Prof'l Eng'rs v. United States, 435 U.S. 679 (1978) (± Oyez)

Covered in Unit 7

 

Catalano, Inc. v. Target Sales, Inc., 446 U.S. 643 (1980) (per curiam)

District court

Ninth Circuit

Catalano, Inc. v. Target Sales, Inc., 605 F.2d 1097(9th Cir. 1979)

Supreme Court

Petition for a writ of certiorari

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Jan. 15, 1980)

Memorandum for the United States as Amicus Curiae (Feb. 9, 1980)

Brief of Respondent Donaghy Sales, Inc. in Opposition to Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (Feb. 12, 1980)

Brief of Respondent Target Sales, Inc. in Opposition to Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (Feb. 15, 1980)

Reply to Brief of Donaghy Sales, Inc. in Opposition to Certiorari (Feb. 26, 1980)

Brief of Respondents D & D Beverage Co. and M & T Distributing Co. in Opposition to Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (Mar. 10, 1980)

Merits

The Court decided the case summarily on the briefs on the petition for a writ of certiorari. No merits briefs were filed.

Commentary

 

Arizona v. Maricopa Cty. Med. Soc'y, 457 U.S. 332 (1982) (± Oyez)

District court

Arizona v. Maricopa Cty. Med. Soc'y, No. CIV-78-800 PHX WPC (D. Ariz. Jun 05, 1979) (reported at 1979 WL 1638)

Ninth Circuit

aff'd, Arizona v. Maricopa Cty. Med. Soc'y, Nos. 79-3427, 79-3612 (9th Cir. Mar 20, 1980)

Supreme Court

Brief for Petitioner (June 5, 1981)

Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae (May 23, 1981)

Joint Briief for Respondents (Aug. 7, 1981)

Reply Brief for Petitioner (Oct. 28, 1981)

rev'd, Arizona v. Maricopa Cty. Med. Soc'y, 457 U.S. 332 (1982)

On remand

Arizona v. Maricopa Cty. Med. Soc'y, Civ. No. 78-800 PHX EHC (D. Ariz. Jan 18, 1983)

Commentary

Passage of the FTC Act

Act of Sept. 26, 1914, ch. 311, 38 Stat. 717 (1914)

Commentary

± Marc Winerman, The Origins of the FTC: Concentration, Cooperation, Control, and Competition, 71 Antitrust L.J. 1 (2003).

± Marc Winerman & William E. Kovacic, Outpost Years for a Start-Up Agency: The FTC from 1921-1925, 77 Antitrust L.J. 145 (2010).

Reference Materials

History of Antitrust Law

± Wayne D. Collins, Trusts and the Origins of Antitrust Legislation, 81 Fordham L. Rev. 2279 (2013).

± Herbert J. Hovenkamp, United States Competition Policy in Crisis: 1890-1955, 94 Minn. L. Rev. 311 (2009).

James May, The Factional Foundations of Competition Policy in America 1888-1992, 42 Antitrust Bull. 239 (1997).

James May, Historical Analysis in Antitrust Law, 35 N.Y. L. Sch. L. Rev. 857 (1990).

Donald Dewey, The Common Law Background of Antitrust Policy, 41 Va. L. Rev. 759 (1955).

Earl Kintner, The Legislative History of the Federal Antitrust Laws and Related Statutes (1978).

William L. Letwin, Law and Economic Policy in America: The Evolution of the Sherman Antitrust Act (1965).

± William H. Page, The Ideological Origins and Evolution of Antitrust Law, in 1 Issues In Law and Competition Policy 1 (ABA Section of Antirust Law 2008).

William E. Kovacic, The Modern Evolution of U.S. Competition Policy Enforcement Norms, 71 Antitrust L.J. 377 (2003).

± Marc Winerman, The Origins of the FTC: Concentration, Cooperation, Control, and Competition, 71 Antitrust L.J. 1 (2003).

Marc Winerman & William E. Kovacic, Outpost Years for a Start-Up Agency: The FTC from 1921-1925, 77 Antitrust L.J. 145 (2010).

James May, The Role of the States in the First Century of the Sherman Act and the Larger Picture of Antitrust History, 59 Antitrust L.J. 93 (1990).

James May, Antitrust in the Formative Era: Political and Economic Theory in Constitutional and Antitrust Analysis, 1880–1919, 50 Ohio St. L.J. 257 (1989).

David Millon, The Sherman Act and the Balance of Power, 61 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1219 (1988).

James May, Antitrust Practice and Procedure in the Formative Era: The Constitutional and Conceptual Reach of State Antitrust Law, 1880-1918, 135 U. Pa. L. Rev. 495 (1987).

George Bittlingmayer, Did Antitrust Policy Cause the Great Merger Wave?, 28 J.L. & Econ. 77 (1985).

George Stigler, The Origin of the Sherman Act, 14 J. Legal Stud.1 (1985).

Robert H. Bork, Legislative Intent and the Policy of the Sherman Act, 9 J.L.& Econ. 7 (1966).

± Douglas H., Ginsburg, Bork's 'Legislative Intent' and the Courts, 79 Antitrust L.J. 941 (2014).

Hans Thorelli, The Federal Antitrust Policy (1955).

George F. Edmunds, The Interstate Trust and Commerce Act of 1890, N. Am. Rev., 801 (1911).

± Albert H. Walker, History of the Sherman Law of the United States of America (1910)

Expediting Act
 
—Statutes

The Expediting Act, Act of Feb. 11, 1903, ch. 544, 32 Stat. 823 (1903) (current version at 15 U.S.C. § 29)

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, Pub. L. No. 93-528, 88 Stat. 1706 (1974) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 15 U.S.C.).

Note: Section 4 eliminates the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and trequirement of three-judge trial courts at the request of the attorney general.

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, H.R. Doc. No. 93-1463 (1974)

Pub. L. No. 98–620, § 402(11),  98 Stat. 3358 (1984) (repealing expediting requirements)

± 15 U.S.C. § 29 (current provisions on appeals of antitrust cases)

± 28 U.S.C. § 2101(e) provides that "[a]n application to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review a case before judgment has been rendered in the court of appeals may be made at any time before judgment."

—AT&T

United States v. Western Elec. Co., No. 82-0192, 1982 WL 1931 (D.D.C. Nov. 10, 1982) (entering certification order for direct appeal of the modified final judgment)

—Microsoft

District court certification

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Certification of Direct Appeal to the Supreme Court under 15 U.S.C. § 29, United States v. Microsoft Corp., No. 98-1232 (TPJ) (D.D.C. June 13, 2000)

[Proposed] Order Certifying Direct Appeal to the Supreme Court

[Microsoft opposition]

Plaintiffs’ Reply to Microsoft’s Opposition to Motion for Certification of Direct Appeal to the Supreme Court (June 20, 2000)

Order (June 20, 2000)

Supreme Court—direct appeal

Brief for the United States in Response to the Jurisdictional Statement, Microsoft Corp. v.. United States, No. 00-139 (Augf. 2000)

Brief of Software and Information Industry Association and Computer & Communications Industry Association as Amici Curiae Supporting Jurisdiction (Aug. 2000)

Supreme Court—Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

NB: ± 28 U.S.C. § 2101(e) provides that "[a]n application to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review a case before judgment has been rendered in the court of appeals may be made at any time before judgment."

Brief for the United States

Order, Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 530 U.S. 1301 (2000), denying direct appeal and writ of certiorai from 97 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D.D.C. 2000).

 

1. Introduction to Price Fixing

3. Criminal Prosecutions