The US Supreme Court unanimously rejects a Georgia state-sanctioned hospital authority’s claim that its acquisition of a competing hospital was immune from antitrust scrutiny under the state-action doctrine (FTC / Phoebe Putney)

Phoebe Putney: A Quick Post-Mortem, and Some Thoughts on the Next Justice Stevens* I often feel a certain deflation after the Supreme Court decides an antitrust case. After watching a case for months, prognosticating about it with other antitrusters, reading umpteen blog posts, reading the briefs if you’re into it and even some amici briefs if you’re really into it, the Court then rules one way or the other, and usually tailors its opinion pretty narrowly, breaking no meaningfully new ground. I suppose many will have that feeling about Tuesday’s decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe Putney Mem. Hosp. Sys., and some are already saying that Justice Sotomayor’s brief opinion for a unanimous Court is just a narrow application of garden variety state action rules. And I suppose it

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • Cleveland University - Marshall School of Law

Quotation

Christopher Sagers, The US Supreme Court unanimously rejects a Georgia state-sanctioned hospital authority’s claim that its acquisition of a competing hospital was immune from antitrust scrutiny under the state-action doctrine (FTC / Phoebe Putney), 19 February 2013, e-Competitions February 2013, Art. N° 50987

Visites 254

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues