30 Cited authorities

Landgraf v. USI Film Prods.
511 U.S. 244 (1994) Cited 3,840 times 34 Legal Analyses
Holding that a statute may apply retroactively when "clear congressional intent favor such a result"
Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.
551 U.S. 877 (2007) Cited 466 times 76 Legal Analyses
Holding that the rule of reason rather than per se illegality applies to vertical price restraints
Hughes Aircraft v. U.S. ex Rel. Schumer
520 U.S. 939 (1997) Cited 536 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that the presumption against retroactivity must apply “unless Congress has clearly manifested its intent to the contrary”
Business Electronics v. Sharp Electronics
485 U.S. 717 (1988) Cited 516 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a vertical restraint of trade is not per se illegal under § 1 of the Sherman Act unless it includes some agreement on price or price levels
Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.
441 U.S. 1 (1979) Cited 579 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding generally that blanket and per-program licenses by ASCAP and BMI were not per se antitrust violations, but rather these licenses, "when attacked, . . . should be subjected to a more discriminating examination under the rule of reason"
Texaco v. Dagher
547 U.S. 1 (2006) Cited 249 times 20 Legal Analyses
Finding such an agreement reasonable and not anti-competitive for purposes of § 1 liability
Harisiades v. Shaughnessy
342 U.S. 580 (1952) Cited 567 times
Holding that the Ex Post Facto Clause does not apply to deportation orders because "[d]eportation, however severe its consequences, has been consistently classified as a civil rather than a criminal procedure"
De Veau v. Braisted
363 U.S. 144 (1960) Cited 375 times
Holding that state statutory bans against employment of convicted felons in certain jobs did not impose punishment under Ex Post Facto Clause
Saks v. Franklin Covey Co.
316 F.3d 337 (2d Cir. 2003) Cited 286 times
Holding that "ERISA preemption of state contract claims in a benefits-due action is an affirmative defense that is . . . subject to waiver, if not pleaded in the defendant's answer."
Chicago Board of Trade v. United States
246 U.S. 231 (1918) Cited 743 times 5 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that because every agreement involving trade is a restraint on trade in some form, the proper inquiry is whether the restraint suppresses or destroys competition
Rule 3 - Commencing an Action
Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 Cited 3,035 times 5 Legal Analyses
Stating that once the inmate has filed his motion with the clerk, "[t]he clerk must file the motion and enter it on the criminal docket of the case in which the challenged judgment was entered"
Section 50-101 - Trusts defined and declared unlawful and void
Kan. Stat. § 50-101 Cited 74 times 2 Legal Analyses
Providing that "a trust is a combination of capital, skill, or acts, by two or more persons" for the purpose of, e.g. , creating or carrying out restrictions in trade or commerce
Section 50-112 - Trusts, combinations and agreements in restraint of trade and free competition declared unlawful
Kan. Stat. § 50-112 Cited 40 times 2 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting contracts that "tend to prevent full and free competition in the importation, transportation or sale of articles imported into th[e] state, or in the product[ion], manufacture or sale of articles of domestic growth or . . . domestic raw material"
Section 50-113 - Trust certificates; creation of trusts
Kan. Stat. § 50-113 Cited 4 times
It shall be unlawful for any corporation to issue or to own trust certificates, other than the regularly and lawfully authorized stock thereof, or for any corporation, agent, officer or employees, or the directors or stockholders of any corporation, to enter into any combination, contract or agreement with any person or persons, or with any stockholder or director thereof, the purpose and effect of which combination, contract or agreement shall be to place the management or control of such combination
Section 50-116 - Pleading in bar or abatement of civil action that plaintiff is member or agent of unlawful combination
Kan. Stat. § 50-116
When an action at law or suit in equity shall be commenced in any court of this state, it shall be lawful in the defense thereof to plead in bar or in abatement that the plaintiff or any other person interested in the prosecution of the case is a member or agent of an unlawful combination as described in K.S.A. 50-112 and 50-113, or that the cause of action grows out of such combination, or out of some business or transaction thereof. K.S.A. 50-116 L. 1889, ch. 257, § 5; March 9; R.S. 1923, 50-116

In Re: Fresh and Process Potatoes Antitrust Litigation

30 Cited authorities

Holding that a statute may apply retroactively when "clear congressional intent favor such a result"

Holding that the rule of reason rather than per se illegality applies to vertical price restraints

Holding that the presumption against retroactivity must apply “unless Congress has clearly manifested its intent to the contrary”

Holding that a vertical restraint of trade is not per se illegal under § 1 of the Sherman Act unless it includes some agreement on price or price levels

Holding generally that blanket and per-program licenses by ASCAP and BMI were not per se antitrust violations, but rather these licenses, "when attacked, . . . should be subjected to a more discriminating examination under the rule of reason"

Finding such an agreement reasonable and not anti-competitive for purposes of § 1 liability

Holding that the Ex Post Facto Clause does not apply to deportation orders because "[d]eportation, however severe its consequences, has been consistently classified as a civil rather than a criminal procedure"

Holding that state statutory bans against employment of convicted felons in certain jobs did not impose punishment under Ex Post Facto Clause

Holding that "ERISA preemption of state contract claims in a benefits-due action is an affirmative defense that is . . . subject to waiver, if not pleaded in the defendant's answer."

Recognizing that because every agreement involving trade is a restraint on trade in some form, the proper inquiry is whether the restraint suppresses or destroys competition

Stating that once the inmate has filed his motion with the clerk, "[t]he clerk must file the motion and enter it on the criminal docket of the case in which the challenged judgment was entered"

Providing that "a trust is a combination of capital, skill, or acts, by two or more persons" for the purpose of, e.g. , creating or carrying out restrictions in trade or commerce

Prohibiting contracts that "tend to prevent full and free competition in the importation, transportation or sale of articles imported into th[e] state, or in the product[ion], manufacture or sale of articles of domestic growth or . . . domestic raw material"