Circuit split · antitrust law
Whether a state's conduct under the tobacco Master Settlement Agreement is entitled to Parker state-action immunity from federal antitrust liability
1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.
- Sanders v. Brown504 F3D 903
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · September 26, 2007
“10 Accordingly, we decline to follow the Third Circuit and instead hold that the state is entitled to Parker immunity in this case.” — Declines to follow another circuit
Empirical analysis of this case →
What the split turns on
- Anchor precedents:
- Parker ·
- Fisher ·
- Midcal ·
- Schwegmann Bros. v. Calvert Distillers Corp.341 U.S. 384 ·
- 324 Liquor ·
- Miller
- Doctrines & tests:
- Parker state-action immunity ·
- hybrid restraint ·
- Noerr-Pennington immunity doctrine ·
- per se rule
Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. See all circuit splits.