Misplaced Pages

#381618

96-478: The inspiration and motivation for this act started in 1890, when the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed. There was a strong antitrust movement to prevent manufacturers from joining price-fixing cartels. After Northern Securities Co. v. United States , a 1904 case that dismantled a J. P. Morgan company, antitrust enforcement became institutionalized. Soon, US President Theodore Roosevelt created

192-495: A motion to dismiss , plaintiffs, under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , must plead facts consistent with FRCP 8(a) sufficient to show that a conspiracy is plausible (and not merely conceivable or possible). This protects defendants from bearing the costs of antitrust "fishing expeditions"; however it deprives plaintiffs of perhaps their only tool to acquire evidence (discovery). Second, courts have employed more sophisticated and principled definitions of markets. Market definition

288-468: A cease and desist order against a person's act or practice of unfair and deceptive practices becomes final, the Commission may then seek relief for the violation in either a U.S. district court or "in any competent jurisdiction of a State." If the court determines that the act or practice in question is "one in which a reasonable man would have known under the circumstances was dishonest or fraudulent,"

384-550: A cease and desist order violates the Commission's final and in-effect order to cease and desist engaging in an unfair or deceptive act or practice, the enjoined actor is automatically liable for a civil penalty up to $ 10,000 per violation, the amount of which is to be determined by a district court. In such circumstances, the FTC Act gives U.S. district courts the power to grant mandatory injunctions and "such other and further equitable relief as they deem appropriate" in order to enforce

480-553: A competitive marketplace to protect consumers from abuses. In Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan 506 U.S. 447 (1993) the Supreme Court said: The purpose of the [Sherman] Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself. According to its authors, it

576-520: A few federal court decisions that are classified for national security reasons. The circuit with the fewest appellate judges is the First Circuit , and the one with the most appellate judges is the geographically large and populous Ninth Circuit in the West. The number of judges that the U.S. Congress has authorized for each circuit is set forth by law in 28 U.S.C.   § 44 , while

672-455: A more sophisticated market definition that does not permit as manipulative a definition. Section 2 of the Act forbids monopoly. In Section 2 cases, the court has, again on its own initiative, drawn a distinction between coercive and innocent monopoly. The act is not meant to punish businesses that come to dominate their market passively or on their own merit, only those that intentionally dominate

768-654: A number of years. The number of circuits remained unchanged until the year after Rhode Island ratified the Constitution, when the Midnight Judges Act reorganized the districts into six numbered circuits, and created circuit judgeships so that Supreme Court justices would no longer have to ride circuit. This Act, however, was repealed in March 1802, and Congress provided that the former circuit courts would be revived as of July 1 of that year. But it then passed

864-446: A permanent injunction does not give it the extra power to seek an award of "equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement." Sherman Antitrust Act The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 (26  Stat.   209 , 15 U.S.C.   §§ 1 – 7 ) is a United States antitrust law which prescribes the rule of free competition among those engaged in commerce and consequently prohibits unfair monopolies . It

960-491: A result of the Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington , but the Supreme Court dismissed the question. The last instance of the Supreme Court accepting a set of questions and answering them was in 1982's City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc . A court of appeals may convene a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel to hear appeals in bankruptcy cases directly from the bankruptcy court of its circuit. As of 2008 , only

1056-506: A single case can only be heard by one circuit court, a core legal principle may be tried through multiple cases in separate circuit courts, creating an inconsistency between different parts of the United States. This creates a split decision among the circuit courts. Often, if there is a split decision between two or more circuits, and a related case is petitioned to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will take that case as to resolve

SECTION 10

#1732765057382

1152-440: A state requires conduct analyzed under the rule of reason, a court must carefully distinguish rule of reason analysis for preemption purposes from the analysis for liability purposes. To analyze whether preemption occurs, the court must determine whether the inevitable effects of a statutory restraint unreasonably restrain trade. If they do, preemption is warranted unless the statute passes the appropriate state action tests. But, when

1248-496: A statute is attacked on its face or for its effects. A statute can be condemned on its face only when it mandates, authorizes or places irresistible pressure on private parties to engage in conduct constituting a per se violation of Section 1. If the statute does not mandate conduct violating a per se rule, the conduct is analyzed under the rule of reason, which requires an examination of the conduct's actual effects on competition. If unreasonable anticompetitive effects are created,

1344-528: A sufficient reason for invalidating the ... statute. For if an adverse effect on competition were, in and of itself, enough to render a state statute invalid, the States' power to engage in economic regulation would be effectively destroyed. This indicates that not every anticompetitive effect warrants preemption. In neither Exxon nor New Motor Vehicle did the created effect constitute an antitrust violation. The Rice guideline therefore indicates that only when

1440-534: Is clarified by examining the three cases cited in Rice to support the statement. In New Motor Vehicle Board v. Orrin W. Fox Co. , automobile manufacturers and retail franchisees contended that the Sherman Act preempted a statute requiring manufacturers to secure the permission of a state board before opening a new dealership if and only if a competing dealer protested. They argued that a conflict existed because

1536-436: Is divided into three sections. Section 1 delineates and prohibits specific means of anticompetitive conduct, while Section 2 deals with end results that are anti-competitive in nature. Thus, these sections supplement each other in an effort to prevent businesses from violating the spirit of the Act, while technically remaining within the letter of the law. Section 3 simply extends the provisions of Section 1 to U.S. territories and

1632-403: Is likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances. The representation, omission or practice must also be material, in that it is likely to affect the consumer's conduct or decision regarding the product or service. If the representation or practice is directed to a particular group, the Commission will consider reasonableness from that targeted group's perspective. Notably, there

1728-461: Is necessary, in rule of reason cases, for the plaintiff to prove a conspiracy is harmful. It is also necessary for the plaintiff to establish the market relationship between conspirators to prove their conduct is within the per se rule. In early cases, it was easier for plaintiffs to show market relationship, or dominance, by tailoring market definition, even if it ignored fundamental principles of economics. In U.S. v. Grinnell , 384 U.S. 563 (1966),

1824-435: Is no requirement that the actor intend for their acts to be misleading. An act or practice is "unfair" under the FTC Act if it "causes or is likely to cause substantial injury" to consumers when the injury is "not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves." Further, for an act or practice to be unfair, the injury cannot be outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. An example of an injury that rises to

1920-438: Is statutory direction or some legislative history to the contrary." However, the above rule cannot apply in criminal cases if the effect of applying the newer law would be to create an ex post facto law to the detriment of the defendant. Decisions made by the circuit courts only apply to the states within the court's oversight, though other courts may use the guidance issued by the circuit court in their own judgments. While

2016-759: The Bureau of Corporations , an agency that reported on the economy and businesses in the industry. The agency was the predecessor to the Federal Trade Commission. In 1913, Congress expanded on the agency by passing the Federal Trade Commissions Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act . The Federal Trade Commission Act was designed for business reform. Congress passed the act in the hopes of protecting consumers against methods of deception in advertisement and of forcing

SECTION 20

#1732765057382

2112-709: The Clayton Act created exceptions for certain union activities, but the Supreme Court ruled in Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering that the actions allowed by the Act were already legal. Congress included provisions in the Norris–La Guardia Act in 1932 to more explicitly exempt organized labor from antitrust enforcement, and the Supreme Court upheld these exemptions in United States v. Hutcheson 312 U.S. 219 . To determine whether

2208-460: The First , Sixth , Eighth , Ninth , and Tenth Circuits have established a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. Those circuits that do not have a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel have their bankruptcy appeals heard by the district court. Courts of appeals decisions, unlike those of the lower federal courts, establish binding precedents . Other federal courts in that circuit must, from that point forward, follow

2304-483: The Act preempts a state law , courts will engage in a two-step analysis, as set forth by the Supreme Court in Rice v. Norman Williams Co. The antitrust laws allow coincident state regulation of competition. The Supreme Court enunciated the test for determining when a state statute is in irreconcilable conflict with Section 1 of the Sherman Act in Rice v. Norman Williams Co. Different standards apply depending on whether

2400-413: The Act to bring suits for treble damages (i.e. three times as much money in damages as the violation cost them). Over time, the federal courts have developed a body of law under the Sherman Act making certain types of anticompetitive conduct per se illegal, and subjecting other types of conduct to case-by-case analysis regarding whether the conduct unreasonably restrains trade. The law attempts to prevent

2496-521: The Chief Judge hear en banc cases. Many decades ago, certain classes of federal court cases held the right of an automatic appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States . That is, one of the parties in the case could appeal a decision of a court of appeals to the Supreme Court, and it had to accept the case. The right of automatic appeal for most types of decisions of a court of appeals

2592-570: The Clayton Act. The amendment proscribed certain anti-competitive practices in which manufacturers engaged in price discrimination against equally-situated distributors. The federal government began filing cases under the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890. Some cases were successful and others were not; many took several years to decide, including appeals. Notable cases filed under the act include: Congress claimed power to pass

2688-469: The Commission may do so only if the actor had engaged in the act or practice with "actual knowledge" that the act or practice was both "unfair or deceptive" and unlawful. Actual knowledge can be established with a showing that the Commission provided the actor with a copy of its determination or a synopsis of such determination that led to the relevant cease and desist order. Both types of actions will result in an up to $ 10,000 civil penalty to be determined by

2784-452: The Commission's final order. The Commission is also authorized to commence civil actions in a U.S. district court—without first adjudicating the matter in administrative court—against actors it finds to be in violation of the Commission's promulgated rules prohibiting deceptive and unfair practices. It may do so, however, only in certain circumstances, including if it determines that the actor had actual knowledge or "knowledge fairly implied on

2880-502: The District of Columbia. Section 1: Section 2: The Clayton Antitrust Act , passed in 1914, proscribes certain additional activities that had been discovered to fall outside the scope of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Clayton Antitrust Act added certain practices to the list of impermissible activities: The Clayton Antitrust Act specifically states that unions are exempt from this ruling. The Robinson–Patman Act of 1936 amended

2976-413: The FTC Act's prohibition on unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and that a proceeding against the actor is in the public's best interest, the Commission is authorized to commence administrative proceedings against the actor in administrative court. Other parties may apply to intervene and appear at the hearing. If, after the administrative hearing, the Commission determines

Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 - Misplaced Pages Continue

3072-539: The FTC Act. Banks, savings and loans institutions, federal credit unions and certain other financial entities are instead under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau . The Commission enforces the FTC Act through its federal rulemaking authority to issue industry-wide rules and regulations, adjudicatory powers, and statutory authority to file civil actions in certain circumstances. The FTC Act does not give consumers

3168-469: The Federal Trade Commission can act on cases that violate either act. The Federal Trade Commission Act and both antitrust laws were created for the sole objective to "protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, keep prices down, and keep quality up." The acts are considered the core of antitrust laws and are still very important in today's society. This commission

3264-587: The Ninth Circuit Court, the en banc court consists of all of the circuit judges who are on active status, but it does not include the senior or assigned judges (except that under some circumstances, a senior judge may participate in an en banc hearing who participated at an earlier stage of the same case). Because of the large number of Appellate Judges in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (29), only ten judges, chosen at random, and

3360-577: The Robinson-Patman and Sherman Acts" should be preempted. In both New Motor Vehicle and Exxon , the Court upheld the statutes and rejected the arguments presented as Merely another way of stating that the ... statute will have an anticompetitive effect. In this sense, there is a conflict between the statute and the central policy of the Sherman Act – 'our charter of economic liberty'. ... Nevertheless, this sort of conflict cannot itself constitute

3456-900: The Senate by a 43-5 vote on September 8, 1914 and the House on September 10 without a tally of yeas and nays. It was signed into law by President Wilson on September 26. The Federal Trade Commission Act does more than create the Commission: Under this Act, the Commission is empowered, among other things, to (a) prevent unfair methods of competition, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce; (b) seek monetary redress and other relief for conduct injurious to consumers; (c) prescribe trade regulation rules defining with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive, and establishing requirements designed to prevent such acts or practices; (d) conduct investigations relating to

3552-507: The Sherman Act through its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce . Therefore, federal courts only have jurisdiction to apply the Act to conduct that restrains or substantially affects either interstate commerce. (Congress also has ultimate authority over economic rules within the District of Columbia and US territories under the 17th enumerated power and the Territorial Clause , respectively.) This requires that

3648-442: The Sherman Act was adopted, there were only a few federal statutes imposing penalties for obstructing or misusing interstate transportation. With an expanding commerce, many others have since been enacted safeguarding transportation in interstate commerce as the need was seen, including statutes declaring conspiracies to interfere or actual interference with interstate commerce by violence or threats of violence to be felonies. The law

3744-448: The Sherman Act, 21 Cong.Rec. 2456. It was in this sense of preventing restraints on commercial competition that Congress exercised "all the power it possessed." Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers v. United States, supra, 286 U. S. 435. At Addyston Pipe and Steel Company v. United States , 85 F.2d 1, affirmed , 175 U. S. 175 U.S. 211; At Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States , 221 U. S. 1 , 221 U. S. 54 -58. The Sherman Act

3840-462: The Sherman Act, the statute "appears firmly anchored to the assumption that the Sherman Act will deter any attempts by the appellants to preserve their ... price level [in one state] by conspiring to raise the prices at which liquor is sold elsewhere in the country". Thus, Seagram indicates that when conduct required by a state statute combines with other conduct that, taken together, constitutes an illegal restraint of trade, liability may be imposed for

3936-406: The States, and the States have no authority to legislate in respect of commerce between the several States or with foreign nations. See also the statement on the floor of the House by Mr. Culberson, in charge of the bill, There is no attempt to exercise any doubtful authority on this subject, but the bill is confined strictly and alone to subjects over which, confessedly, there is no question about

Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 - Misplaced Pages Continue

4032-425: The Supreme Court for a ruling in the midst of reviewing a case. This procedure was formerly used somewhat commonly, but now it is quite rare. For example, while between 1937 and 1946 twenty 'certificate' cases were accepted, since 1947 the Supreme Court has accepted only four. The Second Circuit, sitting en banc , attempted to use this procedure in the case United States v. Penaranda , 375 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2004), as

4128-560: The Supreme Court may grant the writ of certiorari before the judgment is rendered by the court of appeals, thereby reviewing the lower court's ruling directly. Certiorari before judgment was granted in the Watergate scandal -related case, United States v. Nixon , and in the 2005 decision involving the Federal Sentencing Guidelines , United States v. Booker . A court of appeals may also pose questions to

4224-419: The Supreme Court. Because of their ability to set legal precedent in regions that cover millions of Americans, the United States courts of appeals have strong policy influence on U.S. law. Moreover, because the Supreme Court chooses to review fewer than 3% of the 7,000 to 8,000 cases filed with it annually, the U.S. courts of appeals serve as the final arbiter on most federal cases. There are 179 judgeships on

4320-573: The U.S. courts of appeals authorized by Congress in 28 U.S.C.   § 43 pursuant to Article III of the U.S. Constitution . Like other federal judges , they are nominated by the president of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate . They have lifetime tenure, earning (as of 2023) an annual salary of $ 246,600. The actual number of judges in service varies, both because of vacancies and because senior judges who continue to hear cases are not counted against

4416-1151: The United States , and the annual submission of a report to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts on the number and nature of orders entered during the year that relate to judicial misconduct. Judicial councils consist of the chief judge of the circuit and an equal number of circuit judges and district judges of the circuit. The courts of appeals, and the lower courts and specific other bodies over which they have appellate jurisdiction, are as follows: First Circuit ( Boston ) Second Circuit ( New York City ) Third Circuit ( Philadelphia ) Fourth Circuit ( Richmond ) Fifth Circuit ( New Orleans ) Sixth Circuit ( Cincinnati ) Seventh Circuit ( Chicago ) Eighth Circuit ( St. Louis ) Ninth Circuit ( San Francisco ) Tenth Circuit ( Denver ) Eleventh Circuit ( Atlanta ) District of Columbia Circuit ( Washington ) Federal Circuit ( Washington ) Based on 2020 United States Census figures,

4512-418: The United States and hear appeals from the U.S. district courts within their borders. The District of Columbia Circuit covers only Washington, DC . The Federal Circuit hears appeals from federal courts across the entire United States in cases involving certain specialized areas of law. The United States courts of appeals are considered the most powerful and influential courts in the United States after

4608-594: The _____ Circuit", and the "United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia" became the "United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit". The Tenth Circuit was created in 1929 by subdividing the existing Eighth Circuit, and the Eleventh Circuit was created in 1981 by subdividing the existing Fifth Circuit. The Federal Circuit was created in 1982 by the merger of the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and

4704-522: The actor has violated the FTC Act's prohibitions on unfair and deceptive acts, it must provide the actor with findings of fact and issue and serve a cease and desist order against the violation. The enjoined party may appeal the FTC's cease and desist order to the U.S. Court of Appeals in "any circuit where the method of competition or act or practice in question was used or where such person, partnership or corporation resides or carries on business . . . ." When

4800-446: The appeals court's guidance in similar cases, regardless of whether the trial judge thinks that the case should be decided differently. Federal and state laws can and do change from time to time, depending on the actions of Congress and the state legislatures. Therefore, the law that exists at the time of the appeal might be different from the law that existed at the time of the events that are in controversy under civil or criminal law in

4896-496: The appellate division of the United States Court of Claims. Judicial councils are panels in each circuit that are charged with making "necessary and appropriate orders for the effective and expeditious administration of justice" within their circuits. Among their responsibilities is judicial discipline, the formulation of circuit policy, the implementation of policy directives received from the Judicial Conference of

SECTION 50

#1732765057382

4992-458: The artificial raising of prices by restriction of trade or supply. "Innocent monopoly", or monopoly achieved solely by merit, is legal, but acts by a monopolist to artificially preserve that status, or nefarious dealings to create a monopoly, are not. The purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors from harm from legitimately successful businesses, nor to prevent businesses from gaining honest profits from consumers, but rather to preserve

5088-424: The basis of objective circumstances" that the act is unfair or deceptive. If the Commission issued a final and in-effect cease and desist order through its administrative proceedings with regard to an unlawful act or practice, it may initiate civil proceedings against another actor for engaging in the same unlawful act or practice, even when the new actor was not subject to the initial cease and desist order. However,

5184-411: The bill which was adopted without change, declared: No attempt is made to invade the legislative authority of the several States or even to occupy doubtful grounds. No system of laws can be devised by Congress alone which would effectually protect the people of the United States against the evils and oppression of trusts and monopolies. Congress has no authority to deal, generally, with the subject within

5280-486: The business to be upfront and truthful about items being sold. The act was part of a bigger movement in the early 20th century to use special groups like commissions to regulate and oversee certain forms of business. The Federal Trade Commission Act works in conjunction with the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. Any violations of the Sherman Act also violates the Federal Trade Commission Act and so

5376-414: The case at hand. A court of appeals applies the law as it exists at the time of the appeal; otherwise, it would be handing down decisions that would be instantly obsolete, and this would be a waste of time and resources, since such decisions could not be cited as precedent. "[A] court is to apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision, unless doing so would result in manifest injustice, or there

5472-436: The court may grant relief that the "court finds necessary to redress injury to consumers or other persons, partnerships, and corporations" resulting from the violation or unfair or deceptive act or practice. The statute provides a non-exhaustive list of relief available, including rescission or reformation of contracts, refunds or returns of property, damages, or public notice of the violation. In addition, if an actor subject to

5568-423: The court. The FTC Act also authorizes the Commission in particular cases to obtain a permanent injunction through a civil action in federal court against any actor under the Commission's jurisdiction if it believes the actor "is violating, or is about to violate, any provision of law" enforced by the Commission. The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the provision providing the Commission with its power to seek

5664-402: The courts in the first instance to say how far they could carry it or its particular definitions as applicable to each particular case as the occasion might arise." Similarly Senator Hoar, a member of that committee who with Senator Edmunds was in charge of the bill, stated United States courts of appeals [REDACTED] [REDACTED] The United States courts of appeals are

5760-571: The dispersed population in towns and the smaller cities that existed then. The "courts of appeals" system was established in the Judiciary Act of 1891 . Because the courts of appeals possess only appellate jurisdiction, they do not hold trials . Only courts with original jurisdiction hold trials and thus determine punishments (in criminal cases) and remedies (in civil cases). Instead, appeals courts review decisions of trial courts for errors of law. Accordingly, an appeals court considers only

5856-400: The effect unreasonably restrains trade, and is therefore a violation, can preemption occur. The third case cited to support the "anticompetitive effect" guideline is Joseph E. Seagram & Sons v. Hostetter , in which the Court rejected a facial Sherman Act preemption challenge to a statute requiring that persons selling liquor to wholesalers affirm that the price charged was no higher than

SECTION 60

#1732765057382

5952-418: The intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal judiciary . They hear appeals of cases from the United States district courts and some U.S. administrative agencies , and their decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States . The courts of appeals are divided into 13 "Circuits". Eleven of the circuits are numbered "First" through "Eleventh" and cover geographic areas of

6048-432: The judgment that such cases are not sufficiently common or important to justify the time and expense necessary to identify them". Another important, yet, in the context of Rice , ambiguous guideline regarding preemption by Section 1 is the Court's statement that a "state statute is not preempted by the federal antitrust laws simply because the state scheme might have an anticompetitive effect". The meaning of this statement

6144-504: The legislative power of Congress. And see the statement of Senator Edmunds, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee which reported out the bill in the form in which it passed, that in drafting that bill the committee thought that "we would frame a bill that should be clearly within our constitutional power, that we would make its definition out of terms that were well known to the law already, and would leave it to

6240-431: The level of "substantial" for unfairness purposes would be the coercion of consumers into purchasing defective goods or services on credit without the ability to assert creditor claims or defenses against the transaction. Although public policy is not a specific criterion, it may be considered in determining how substantial an injury might be. If after investigating, the Commission has reason to believe an actor has violated

6336-494: The local district judge; the three circuits existed solely for the purpose of assigning the justices to a group of circuit courts. Some districts (generally the ones most difficult for an itinerant justice to reach) did not have a circuit court; in these districts the district court exercised the original jurisdiction of a circuit court. As new states were admitted to the Union, Congress often did not create circuit courts for them for

6432-428: The lowest price at which sales were made anywhere in the United States during the previous month. Since the attack was a facial one, and the state law required no per se violations, no preemption could occur. The Court also rejected the possibility of preemption due to Sherman Act violations stemming from misuse of the statute. The Court stated that rather than imposing "irresistible economic pressure" on sellers to violate

6528-428: The market through misconduct, which generally consists of conspiratorial conduct of the kind forbidden by Section 1 of the Sherman Act, or Section 3 of the Clayton Act. While the Act was aimed at regulating businesses, its prohibition of contracts restricting commerce was applied to the activities of labor unions until the 1930s. This is because unions were characterized as cartels as well (cartels of laborers). In 1914

6624-401: The market to the detriment of purchasers or consumers of goods and services, all of which had come to be regarded as a special form of public injury. For that reason the phrase "restraint of trade," which, as will presently appear, had a well understood meaning in common law, was made the means of defining the activities prohibited. The addition of the words "or commerce among the several States"

6720-452: The new Judiciary Act of 1802 in April, so that the revival of the old courts never took effect. The 1802 Act restored circuit riding, but with only one justice to a circuit; it therefore created six new circuits, but with slightly different compositions than the 1801 Act. These six circuits later were augmented by others. Until 1866, each new circuit (except the short-lived California Circuit)

6816-738: The number of authorized judgeships. Decisions of the U.S. courts of appeals have been published by the private company West Publishing in the Federal Reporter series since the courts were established. Only decisions that the courts designate for publication are included. The "unpublished" opinions (of all but the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits ) are published separately in West's Federal Appendix , and they are also available in on-line databases like LexisNexis or Westlaw . More recently, court decisions have also been made available electronically on official court websites. However, there are also

6912-405: The oath is given in writing or in open court before a judge of the circuit, and most courts of appeals allow the applicant attorney to choose which method he or she prefers. When the courts of appeals were created in 1891, one was created for each of the nine circuits then existing , and each court was named the "United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the _____ Circuit". When a court of appeals

7008-498: The organization, business, practices, and management of entities engaged in commerce; and (e) make reports and legislative recommendations to Congress. The FTC Act prohibits unfair methods of competition, unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. The Commission is empowered to enforce the act's provisions against all persons, partnerships or corporations, with several exceptions, including banks, savings and loans institutions, federal credit unions—each as described in

7104-487: The parties' lawyers speak to the court. The rules that govern the procedure in the courts of appeals are the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure . In a court of appeals, an appeal is almost always heard by a "panel" of three judges who are randomly selected from the available judges (including senior judges and judges temporarily assigned to the circuit). Some cases, however, receive an en banc hearing. Except in

7200-519: The places where those judges must regularly sit to hear appeals are prescribed in 28 U.S.C.   § 48 . Although the courts of appeals are frequently called "circuit courts", they should not be confused with the former United States circuit courts , which were active from 1789 through 1911, during the time when long-distance transportation was much less available, and which were primarily first-level federal trial courts that moved periodically from place to place in "circuits" in order to serve

7296-606: The plaintiff must show that the conduct occurred during the flow of interstate commerce or had an appreciable effect on some activity that occurs during interstate commerce. A Section 1 violation has three elements: A Section 2 monopolization violation has two elements: Section 2 also bans attempted monopolization, which has the following elements: Violations of the Sherman Act fall (loosely ) into two categories: A modern trend has increased difficulty for antitrust plaintiffs as courts have come to hold plaintiffs to increasing burdens of pleading. Under older Section 1 precedent, it

7392-565: The population residing in each circuit is as follows. The Judiciary Act of 1789 established three circuits, which were groups of judicial districts in which United States circuit courts were established. The original three circuits were given distinct names, rather than numbers: the Eastern, the Middle, and the Southern. Each circuit court consisted of two Supreme Court justices and

7488-434: The record (that is, the papers the parties filed and the transcripts and any exhibits from any trial) from the trial court, and the legal arguments of the parties. These arguments, which are presented in written form and can range in length from dozens to hundreds of pages, are known as briefs . Sometimes lawyers are permitted to add to their written briefs with oral arguments before the appeals judges. At such hearings, only

7584-405: The required conduct violates Section 1 and the statute is in irreconcilable conflict with the Sherman Act. Then statutory arrangement is analyzed to determine whether it qualifies as "state action" and is thereby saved from preemption. Rice sets out guidelines to aid in preemption analysis. Preemption should not occur "simply because in a hypothetical situation a private party's compliance with

7680-403: The restraint without requiring preemption of the state statute. Rice v. Norman Williams Co. supports this misuse limitation on preemption. Rice states that while particular conduct or arrangements by private parties would be subject to per se or rule of reason analysis to determine liability, "[t]here is no basis ... for condemning the statute itself by force of the Sherman Act." Thus, when

7776-419: The right to sue for violations of the act, but consumers may complain to the Commission about acts or practices they believe to be unfair or deceptive. Consumers may, however, be authorized to sue under a state "UDAP" (unfair, deceptive and abusive practices) statute, sometimes called a "Little FTC Act." An act or practice is "deceptive" under the FTC Act when there is a representation, omission or practice that

7872-420: The split. In order to serve as counsel in a case appealed to a circuit court, the attorney must first be admitted to the bar of that circuit. Admission to the bar of a circuit court is granted as a matter of course to any attorney who is admitted to practice law in any state of the United States. The attorney submits an application, pays a fee, and takes the oath of admission. Local practice varies as to whether

7968-498: The statute might cause him to violate the antitrust laws". This language suggests that preemption occurs only if economic analysis determines that the statutory requirements create "an unacceptable and unnecessary risk of anticompetitive effect", and does not occur simply because it is possible to use the statute in an anticompetitive manner. It should not mean that preemption is impossible whenever both procompetitive and anticompetitive results are conceivable. The per se rule "reflects

8064-685: The statute permitted "auto dealers to invoke state power for the purpose of restraining intrabrand competition". In Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland , oil companies challenged a state statute requiring uniform statewide gasoline prices in situations where the Robinson-Patman Act would permit charging different prices. They reasoned that the Robinson-Patman Act is a qualification of our "more basic national policy favoring free competition" and that any state statute altering "the competitive balance that Congress struck between

8160-458: The statutory conduct combines with other practices in a larger conspiracy to restrain trade, or when the statute is used to violate the antitrust laws in a market in which such a use is not compelled by the state statute, the private party might be subjected to antitrust liability without preemption of the statute. The Act was not intended to regulate existing state statutes regulating commerce within state borders. The House committee, in reporting

8256-503: The trial judge, Charles Wyzanski , composed the market only of alarm companies with services in every state, tailoring out any local competitors; the defendant stood alone in this market, but had the court added up the entire national market, it would have had a much smaller share of the national market for alarm services that the court purportedly used. The appellate courts affirmed this finding; however, today, an appellate court would likely find this definition to be flawed. Modern courts use

8352-401: The use of means which made it impossible for other persons to engage in fair competition." At Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader 310 U.S. 469 , 310 U. S. 492 -93 and n. 15: The legislative history of the Sherman Act, as well as the decisions of this Court interpreting it, show that it was not aimed at policing interstate transportation or movement of goods and property. The legislative history and

8448-436: The voluminous literature which was generated in the course of the enactment and during fifty years of litigation of the Sherman Act give no hint that such was its purpose. They do not suggest that, in general, state laws or law enforcement machinery were inadequate to prevent local obstructions or interferences with interstate transportation, or presented any problem requiring the interposition of federal authority. In 1890, when

8544-470: Was authorized to issue " cease and desist " orders to large corporations to curb unfair trade practices. In addition, the Federal Trade Commission Act is also considered a measure that protects privacy since it allows the FTC to penalize companies that violate their own policies by false advertising and other actions that can harm consumers. Some of the unfair methods of competition that were targeted include deceptive advertisements and pricing. The act passed

8640-409: Was created for the District of Columbia in 1893, it was named the "Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia", and it was renamed to the "United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia" in 1934. In 1948, Congress renamed all of the courts of appeals then existing to their current formal names: the court of appeals for each numbered circuit was named the "United States Court of Appeals for

8736-444: Was enacted in the era of "trusts" and of "combinations" of businesses and of capital organized and directed to control of the market by suppression of competition in the marketing of goods and services, the monopolistic tendency of which had become a matter of public concern. The goal was to prevent restraints of free competition in business and commercial transactions which tended to restrict production, raise prices, or otherwise control

8832-497: Was ended by an Act of Congress, the Judiciary Act of 1925 , which also reorganized many other things in the federal court system. Passage of this law was urged by Chief Justice William Howard Taft . The current procedure is that a party in a case may apply to the Supreme Court to review a ruling of the circuit court. This is called petitioning for a writ of certiorari , and the Supreme Court may choose, in its sole discretion, to review any lower court ruling. In extremely rare cases,

8928-603: Was not an additional kind of restraint to be prohibited by the Sherman Act, but was the means used to relate the prohibited restraint of trade to interstate commerce for constitutional purposes, Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers v. United States, 286 U. S. 427, 286 U. S. 434, so that Congress, through its commerce power, might suppress and penalize restraints on the competitive system which involved or affected interstate commerce. Because many forms of restraint upon commercial competition extended across state lines so as to make regulation by state action difficult or impossible, Congress enacted

9024-415: Was not intended to impact market gains obtained by honest means, by benefiting the consumers more than the competitors. Senator George Hoar of Massachusetts , another author of the Sherman Act, said the following: ... [a person] who merely by superior skill and intelligence...got the whole business because nobody could do it as well as he could was not a monopolist...(but was if) it involved something like

9120-449: Was not settled how much evidence was required to show a conspiracy. For example, a conspiracy could be inferred based on parallel conduct, etc. That is, plaintiffs were only required to show that a conspiracy was conceivable. Since the 1970s, however, courts have held plaintiffs to higher standards, giving antitrust defendants an opportunity to resolve cases in their favor before significant discovery under FRCP 12(b)(6). That is, to overcome

9216-493: Was passed by Congress and is named for Senator John Sherman , its principal author. The Sherman Act broadly prohibits 1) anticompetitive agreements and 2) unilateral conduct that monopolizes or attempts to monopolize the relevant market. The Act authorizes the Department of Justice to bring suits to enjoin (i.e. prohibit) conduct violating the Act, and additionally authorizes private parties injured by conduct violating

#381618