skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 64689 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: ROLE OF COURTS IN ANTITRUST LAW
Author(s): P M GERHART
Date Published: 1979
Page Count: 65
Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
Contract Number: JAO1A-79-M-3564
Publication Number: FJRP-79/001
Format: Document
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: THIS ESSAY EXAMINES THE ROLE OF COURTS IN ANTITRUST LAW AND EVALUATES THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF FORMAL COURT ADJUDICATION IN ANTITRUST CASES.
Abstract: THE COURT'S ROLE IN ANTITRUST LAW IS SHAPED BY STATUTORY PROVISIONS, BY THE NATURE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER, AND BY THE INTERACTION BETWEEN LAW AND ECONOMICS. THE SUCCESS OF THE COURT PROCESS DEPENDS IN ITS ABILITY TO ASSEMBLE EVIDENCE, DETERMINE FACTS, ESTABLISH RULES OF LAW, AND APPLY RULES OF LAW TO THE FACTS. ALTHOUGH SOME ANTITRUST CASES, SUCH AS PRICE FIXING CASES, HAVE CHARACTERISTICS SUITABLE FOR COURT PROCEEDINGS, THE COURTS' COMPETENCY IS SOMETIMES STRAINED BY THREE CHARACTERISTICS OF ANTITRUST CASES: (1) THE DEGREE OF POLICYMAKING REQUIRED IN INDIVIDUAL ADJUDICATION, (2) THE NATURE OF THE RELIEF SOMETIMES REQUESTED, AND (3) THE NATURE OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED. TRADITIONAL SOURCES OF LAW ARE OFTEN UNHELPFUL TO COURTS IN ESTABLISHING AND APPLYING ANTITRUST LAW. MAJOR ISSUES IN ASSESSING THE COURTS' ROLE INCLUDE THEIR ROLE IN DEVELOPING ANTITRUST LAW, ANTITRUST PROOF, ANTITRUST RELIEF, PRIVATE PLAINTIFFS, LENGTH OF LITIGATION, AND THE ROLE OF JURIES. MUCH OF THE FAILURE IN ANTITRUST ACTION IS A FAILURE TO ARTICULATE A CLEAR SET OF LEGAL STANDARDS CAPABLE OF BEING ADDRESSED IN AN ADVERSARY SETTING. THE EXPERIENCE OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION SHOWS THAT ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION IS NOT A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COURT ADJUDICATION. CLEAR DOCTRINE SHOULD BE DEVELOPED THROUGH THE COURTS. ADJUDICATION ON THE DESIRABILITY AND FEASIBIITY OF STRUCTURAL RELIEF SHOULD BE FOLLOWED BY THE APPOINTMENT OF AN IMPARTIAL MEDIATOR-NEGOTIATOR TO WORK OUT THE DETAILS OF THE RELIEF WITH THE PARTIES AND FRAME ANY ADDITIONAL ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADJUDICATED. WHERE CURRENT LEGAL DOCTRINE IS IMPRECISE, CASES CAN BE FORCED INTO AN ACCEPTABLE MOLD DESPITE THE STRAIN ON THE COURTS' COMPETENCY. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (CFW)
Index Term(s): Administrative adjudication; Antitrust offenses; Court reform; Critiques; Laws and Statutes
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=64689

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.