Although the Supreme Court seemed sharply divided in its 1981–82 and 1982–83 terms, its decisions continue to be important to marketers. Not only did the Court render decisions that were important in determining pricing and advertising practices, particularly in the professions, it also made significant decisions impacting on marketing organization. Finally, in what appear to be its most important holdings in these two terms, the Court decided procedural questions that may alter the actions of both the judiciary and the regulatory agencies. A Court with a new composition may soon be forthcoming, and the resulting judicial regulation of marketing could change significantly.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Albrecht v. Herald Co. (1968), 390 U.S. 145.
2.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Inc. v. Hydro-level Corp. (1982), 102 S.Ct. 1935; Trade Cases (1982), ¶ 64,730.
3.
Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society et al. (1982), 102 S.Ct. 2466; Trade Cases (1982), ¶ 64,792.
4.
Bankamerica Corporation et al. v. United States (1983), 103 S.Ct. 2296; Trade Cases (1983), ¶ 65,410.
5.
Bates et al. v. State Bar of Arizona (1977), 433 U.S. 623.
6.
Blue Shield of Virginia et al. v. Carol McCready (1982), 102 S.Ct. 2540; Trade Cases (1982), ¶ 64,791.
7.
Bureau of National Affairs (1982a), “Supreme Court Hears Argument on One-House Legislative Veto,”Antitrust & Trade Regulation Report, 1061 (December 9).
8.
Bureau of National Affairs (1982b), “Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on Constitutionality of One-House Veto,”Antitrust & Trade Regulation Report, 460 (March 4).
9.
Bureau of National Affairs (1982c), “Supreme Court Orders Reargument of One-House Legislative Veto Case,”Antitrust & Trade Regulation Report, 50 (July 8).
10.
Bureau of National Affairs (1983a), “High Court Will Review Case Involving Dr. Miles,”Antitrust & Trade Regulation Report, 487 (March 3).
11.
Bureau of National Affairs (1983b), “Number of Private Actions Rises as Number of Government Suits Falls,”Antitrust & Trade Regulation Report, 412 (September 22).
12.
Bureau of National Affairs (1983c), “Reagan Appointees Produced Fewer Cases than Their Predecessors at Justice, FTC,”Antitrust & Trade Regulation Report, 200 (January 27).
13.
City of Lafayette, Louisiana, and City of Plaquemine, Louisiana v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. (1978), 435 U.S. 389.
14.
Clayton Act (1914), 38 Stat. 730; 15 U.S.C. Sec. 12–27.
15.
Community Communications Company, Inc. v. City of Boulder, Colorado, et al. (1982), 455 U.S. 40.
16.
Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. (1911), 220 U.S. 373.
17.
Falls City Industries, Inc. v. Vanco Beverage, Inc. (1983), 103 S.Ct. 1282; Trade Cases (1983), ¶ 65,282.
18.
Federal Trade Commission v. Grolier Incorporated (1983), 103 S.Ct. 2209; Trade Cases (1983), ¶ 65,404.
19.
Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co. (1982), 74 L Ed 2d 225.
20.
Group Life & Health Insurance Co. v. Royal Drug Co. (1979), 440 U.S. 205.
21.
Hybud Equipment Corp. v. City of Akron (1982), 455 U.S. 931.
22.
Illinois v. Abbott & Associates, Inc. (1983), 103 S.Ct. 1356; Trade Cases (1983), ¶ 65,290.
23.
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chada; U.S. House of Representatives v. Immigration & Naturalization Service; U.S. Senate v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (1983), 77 L Ed 2d 317.
24.
In re R.M.J. (1982), 455 U.S. 191.
25.
Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Association, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories et al. (1983), 103 S.Ct. 1011; Trade Cases (1983), ¶ 65,229.
26.
McCarran-Ferguson Act (1945), 59 Stat. 33; 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1012.
27.
Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Corp. (1983), 74 L Ed 2d 479; (1984) 104 S.Ct. 1464.
28.
Parker v. Brown (1943), 317 U.S. 341.
29.
Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy (1983), 74 L Ed 2d 430.
30.
Process Gas Consumers Group et al. v. Consumers Energy Council of America et al.; Interstate Natural Gas Association of America et al. v. Consumers Energy Council of America et al.; Petrochemical Energy Group v. Consumer Energy Council of America et al.; American Gas Association v. Consumer Energy Council of America et al.; United States Senate v. Consumer Energy Council of America et al.; United States House of Representatives v. Consumer Energy Council of America et al.; United States Senate v. Federal Trade Commission et al.; United States House of Representatives v. Federal Trade Commission et al. (1983), 77 L Ed 2d 1457.
Union Labor Life Insurance Company v. A. Alexander Pireno; New York State Chiropractic Association v. A. Alexander Pireno (1982), 102 S.Ct. 3002; Trade Cases (1982), ¶ 64,802.
