Antitrust

dc.contributor.authorClifford, John A.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-02-14T03:12:39Z
dc.date.available2013-02-14T03:12:39Z
dc.date.issued1981
dc.description.abstractFIRST PARAGRAPH(S)|The Eighth Circuit was faced with two cases in 1980 where the defense of implied immunity to the antitrust laws was asserted by defendants. Implied immunity can only arise where there exists a pervasive body of regulation inconsistent with enforcement of the antitrust laws. In this situation, activity taken pursuant to the regulations can be immune from antitrust challenge. The implied immunity defense differs from an express exemption from the antitrust laws, and should not be confused with the much litigated state action exemption.|In one of the cases decided in 1980, the implied immunity defense was successfully argued by Blue Cross of Kansas City, in an action brought under sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by a recently constructed hospital which sought...en_US
dc.description.note1980-1981en_US
dc.description.pages989en_US
dc.description.volume14
dc.identifier.citation14 Creighton L. Rev. 989 (1980-1981)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10504/39282
dc.publisherCreighton University School of Lawen_US
dc.publisher.locationOmaha, Nebraskaen_US
dc.rights.holderCreighton Universityen_US
dc.time.yr1980-1981
dc.titleAntitrusten_US
dc.title.workCreighton Law Reviewen_US
dc.typeJournal Article
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
55_14CreightonLRev989(1980-1981).pdf
Size:
681.58 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: