f/k/a archives . . . real opinions & real haiku

October 31, 2005

Alito & Antitrust

Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 6:20 pm


of the AAI Advisory Board, reviews the antitrust record of Judge Samuel Alito,

and concludes that Judge Alito “is unlikely to be a supporter of antitrust en-

forcement.” (“Sam Alito and Antitrust,” Oct. 31, 2005)

 

“BertFoerS”  AAI President Albert Foer gives this summary:


“[Freed] found no relevant articles by Judge Alito, but identified a

small group of cases in which Alito sat as judge where antitrust

issues arose. While one must to some extent read between the

lines in order to find the outlines of a position, it appears that Judge

Alito is not favorably disposed toward the private enforcement of the

antitrust laws. The one case in which he seemed most friendly to

an antitrust claim was decided over fourteen years ago. Mr. Freed

concluded from this research that “Judge Alito is not likely to be a

supporter of antitrust enforcement.”

Freed, a well-respected expert on class actions and complex litigation,

who is a Principal in the Chicago firm of Much Shelist, briefly discusses

eight Alito antitrust cases from the 3rd Circuit.   The cases are:

 

1.  LePage’s Inc. v. 3M, 324 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2003) (in dissent) cert. den.,

124 S.Ct. 2932 (June 30, 2004).

 

2.  Joint Stock Society v. UDV North America, Inc., 266 F.3d 164

(3d Cir.2001) (wrote opinion)

 

Conte Bros. Automotive, Inc. v. Quaker State-Slick 50, Inc.,

165 F.3d, 221 (3d Cir. 1998) (wrote opinion).

 

Barton & Pittinos, Inc. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 118

F.3d. 178 (3d Cir. 1997) (wrote opinion).

 

                                                                               “AAIS”

 

David Lerman v. Joyce International, Inc., 10 F.3d 106

(3d Cir.1993) (wrote opinion).

 

In re Lower Lake Erie Iron Ore Antitrust Litig., 998 F.2d 1144

(3d Cir. 1993) (Alito sought rehearing en banc, which was denied) . 

 

TICOR Title Insurance Company et al. v. Federal Trade Comm-

ission, 998 F. 2d 1129 (3d Cir. 1991) (Alito dissented).   

 

 Ralph J. Miller, M.D. v. Indiana Hospital et. al., 930 F.2d 334

(3d Cir. 1991) (Alito dissent)

 

 aaiMastN

 

 

In Ralph J. Miller, M.D. v. Indiana Hospital et. al., 930 F.2d 334 (3d Cir. 1991),

Judge Alito refused to apply the State Action exemption to the antitrust laws.

The case involved suit by a physician who had staff privileges revoked. He

sued a state hospital and a number of doctors for antitrust violations. The

district court granted summary judgment to the defendants under state-action

antitrust immunity provided in Parker v. Brown. On appeal, the Third Circuit,

in an opinion written by Alito, reversed, holding that it had not been established

that Pennsylvania actively supervised the peer group decision which resulted

in the revocation of staff privileges.  This is the most-recent antitrust case in

which Judge Alito decided favorably to the plaintiff.

 







alito – 

the plaintiff’s bar

shivers

 

            haikuEsq

 

 

 

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress