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

L'accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés

Déjà abonné ? Identifiez-vous

L’accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés.

Lire gratuitement un article

Vous pouvez lire cet article gratuitement en vous inscrivant.

 

Version PDF

Auteur

  • Cleveland University - Marshall School of Law

Citation

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 février 2013, e-Competitions February 2013, Art. N° 50987

Visites 271

Tous les numéros

  • Latest News issue 
  • Tous les News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • Tous les Special issues