IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/scerev/doi10.1086-664566.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How and Why the Per Se Rule Against Price-Fixing Went Wrong

Author

Listed:
  • Sheldon Kimmel

Abstract

Most scholars believe that price-fixing has always been a per se violation of the Sherman Act except between 1933 (when the Supreme Court’s Appalachian Coals decision dropped the per se rule) and 1940 (when the Socony-Vacuum decision re-instituted it). It is also widely believed that the per se rule ignored “reasonableness” until BMI (1979). However, that’s all wrong: the efficiency that the district court found in Appalachian Coals means that Appalachian Coals was actually a rule of reason case (so it did not affect the per se rule) and Socony’s approval of Appalachian Coals means that Socony’s per se rule applied only to cases where courts had already concluded that “reasonableness” could not explain the defendant’s behavior. Thus, the efficiency that the Appalachian Coals district court found means that all these cases had the same standard, and “reasonableness” was always a factor, at least until Maricopa (1982) misread Socony and stepped away from “reasonableness” for the first time.

Suggested Citation

  • Sheldon Kimmel, 2011. "How and Why the Per Se Rule Against Price-Fixing Went Wrong," Supreme Court Economic Review, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(1), pages 245-270.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:scerev:doi:10.1086/664566
    DOI: 10.1086/664566
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/664566
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/664566
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/664566?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:scerev:doi:10.1086/664566. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/SCER .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.