Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

Antitrust - McCarran-Ferguson immunity - Ninth Circuit finds reinsurers potentially liable for involvement in developing standardized policies

Article Abstract:

The Ninth Circuit ruling in In re Insurance Antitrust Litigation deprived the McCarran-Ferguson Act of all practical effect by holding that the involvement of foreign reinsurers caused loss of exemption from antitrust liability. The case contested new standardized commercial general liability forms adopted by the Insurance Services Office Inc, an association licensed to develop uniform policies. Since the challenged activity was one that the McCarran-Ferguson Act was intended to protect, the court was too literal in denying immunity.

Publisher: Harvard Law Review Association
Publication Name: Harvard Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0017-811X
Year: 1992
Insurance industry, Standardized terms of contract

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Antitrust law - Robinson-Patman Act - Ninth Circuit rules that secondary-line price discrimination cannot be rebutted by a showing of no anticompetitive effect

Article Abstract:

The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chroma Lighting v. GTE Products held that a prima facie showing of the existence of secondary-line retail price discrimination cannot be rebutted by proof of a generally competitive market. The Court properly determined that the legislative history and language of the Robinson-Patman Act support the view that the Act was intended to protect individual competitors. The political and social circumstances at the time of enactment further support the Court's view.

Publisher: Harvard Law Review Association
Publication Name: Harvard Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0017-811X
Year: 1997
United States, Competition (Economics), Price discrimination

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Employment law - discrimination - Ninth Circuit finds for employee in a mixed-motive case without "direct evidence" of discrimination

Article Abstract:

In the case of Costa v. Desert Palace, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in the case of a warehouse worker who sued her employer for sex discrimination in her dismissal. The Court ruled that the plaintiff did not have to show "direct evidence" of sex discrimination in order to win damages, but could win based on discrimination as being one motivation for her firing.

Publisher: Harvard Law Review Association
Publication Name: Harvard Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0017-811X
Year: 2003
Justice, Public Order, and Safety Activities, Rules of Evidence, Burden of proof, Evidence (Law), Sex discrimination, Employee dismissals, Employment terminations, Employment at will

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Cases, Antitrust law, Case Note
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Ninth Circuit decisions focus on role of courts in reviewing plan administrators' decisions. Exhaustion of administrative remedies under qualified plan not required where plaintiff seeks to enforce statutory protections
  • Abstracts: Civil procedure - class actions - Ninth Circuit holds that prior class action tolled the statue of limitations for new class action claim
  • Abstracts: Statutory interpretation - Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 - First Circuit holds that the FMLA includes a private right of action for prospective and former employees
  • Abstracts: Federal statutes - Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 - Ninth Circuit holds that the Wiretap Act protects electronic communications in storage to the same extent as those in transit
  • Abstracts: Products liability law - freedom of speech - Ninth Circuit holds that California's products liability law does not cover false statements in a book
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.