A.A. Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Rose Acre Farms, Inc., 881 F.2d 1396 (7th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 1326 (1990)—Intent Cannot Serve as the Basis of Liability in a Predatory Pricing Case Under the Sherman Act…..40:657

“Affecting Commerce” Under the Sherman Act—How Local the Squeeze?…..31:155

Antitrust Action against Milk Marketing Cooperatives—Shaking Up the Milk Industry…..34:493

Antitrust Actions in Buyer-Seller Relationships Since 1950…..4:3

The Antitrust Implication of Credit Insurance Tying Arrangements…..32:861

The Applicability of Antitrust Laws to the Insurance Industry…..22:810

Blue Shield of Virginia v. McCready (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1982)—A Group Health Plan Subscriber Who Receives the Services of a Psychologist Suffers an Antitrust Injury Predicated upon the Plan’s Failure to Reimburse the Subscriber for the Costs of Such Treatment, and Therefore Has Standing to Maintain a Treble Damage Action Under Section 4 of the Clayton Act…..32:250

City of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1978)—Municipalities Are Exempt from Antitrust Statutes Only When Their Respective State Legislatures Authorize or Contemplate that They Engage in the Anticompetitive Conduct Pursuant to a State Policy to Displace Competition…..28:513

Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar (U.S. 1975)—Minimum Fee Schedule Published by the County Bar Association and Enforced by the Virginia State Bar Violates Section One of the Sherman Antitrust Act…..25:763

Group Life & Health Insurance Co. v. Royal Drug Co. (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1979)—“Pharmacy Agreements” Between Health Insurance Company and Pharmacies, Whereby Pharmacies Receive Reimbursement of Acquisition Costs for Prescription Drugs Furnished Policyholders at Two Dollars a Prescription, Is Not the “Business of Insurance”.….28:977

GTE Sylvania Inc. v. Continental T. V., Inc. (9th Cir. 1976)—Agreements Whereby Franchisee Agrees to Sell Brand-Name Merchandise Only from Approved Franchise Locations Are Not Per Se Violations of Sherman Act but Are to Be Considered Under the Rule of Reason Test…..26:199

The Interplay of the Regimes of Antitrust, Competition and State Insurance Regulation on the Business of Insurance…..28:767

Intrabrand Territorial Allocations and the Per Se Rule…..30:1

Michigan Citizens for an Independent Press v. Thornburgh, 868 F.2d 1285 (D.C. Cir.), aff’d per curiam, 110 S. Ct. 398 (1989)—It Is Reasonable for the Attorney General to Allow a Newspaper Suffering Losses that More than Likely Cannot Be Reversed, Although Not in a Downward Spiral, to Enter a Joint Operating Agreement Under the Newspaper Preservation Act…..40:207

Missouri v. National Organization for Women, Inc. (8th Cir. 1980)—The Sherman Act Is Inapplicable to a Politically Motivated but Economically Tooled Boycott Where Anticompetitive Methods About the First Amendment Right to Petition the Government…..30:383

Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1973)—Regulation by the Federal Power Act Does Not Immunize Electric Utility from Sherman Act Sanction Against Refusals to Deal Intended to Create or Maintain a Monopoly…..23:182

Patent Law: The Impact of the 1988 Patent Misuse Reform Act and Noerr-Pennington Doctrine on Misuse Defenses and Antitrust Counterclaims…..38:175

The Physician Cartel—Potential Hospital Federal Antitrust Liability in Class-Based Denial of Staff Privileges to Clinical Psychologists…..39:509

Potential Federal Intervention in the Insurance Industry: The Pending United States Senate Subcommittee Draft to Amend the McCarran-Ferguson Act…..28:926

The Role of the States in Treble Damage Recovery Under the Federal Antitrust Laws: Rule 23 Class Actions and Parens Patriae…..22:155

Scott v. City of Sioux City (8th Cir. 1984)—A City’s Zoning and Related Actions to Assist and Protect the Public Investment in Urban Renewal Projects Is Shielded from Antitrust Attack as the Reasonable and Necessary Consequence of the Iowa Urban Renewal Law…..34:849

Secondary Boycotts Under Labor and Antitrust: A Choice of Policy…..23:653

Section 1 Sherman Act Liability for Tie-Ins in Condominium Sales…..27:529

St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Barry (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1978)—A Private Conspiracy by Four Insurance Carriers in Which Three Refused to Sell Any Type of Malpractice Insurance to Physicians, Hospitals, and Other Medical Personnel as a Means of Compelling Submission to Terms Dictated by the Fourth States a Sherman Antitrust Claim Within the “Boycott” Exception in Section 3(b) of the McCarran-Ferguson Act…..27:722

Three Generations of State Anti-Takeover Statutes: Their Legitimacy in Relation to Their Effects on Interstate Commerce and the Supremacy Clause…..38:437

United States v. General Dynamics Corp., 94 S. Ct. 1186 (1974)—A Corporate Merger Challenged Under Section 7 of the Clayton Act Allowed on the Basis of Lack of Probable Future Ability to Compete, Even Though Past Production Statistics Would, in the Absence of Other Considerations, Support a Finding of Undue Concentration…..24:223

United States v. Topco Assocs. Inc. (U.S. Sup. Ct.)—Exclusive Territorial Allocations by a Cooperative Association to the Member Grocery Retailing Chains for the Sale of Private Label, Trademarked Products, Held Per Se Violation of the Sherman Act…..22:392