Sherman Antitrust Act

(redirected from Sherman Act)
Also found in: Legal, Encyclopedia.

Sherman Antitrust Act

The first legislation passed in the United States limiting trusts and monopolies. The Act prohibits agreements and collusion restricting trade, without providing many specifics. The Act was largely unenforced against the organizations it was intended to curtail. Indeed, the Act was invoked early on to restrict organized labor more than any other group. As a result, Congress passed the Clayton Act in 1914 to clarify American antitrust law. The Sherman Act has been criticized by many, notably Ayn Rand and her followers, for unfairly and inefficiently restricting the Invisible Hand of the market.
Farlex Financial Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Sherman Antitrust Act

An 1890 federal antitrust law intended to control or prohibit monopolies by forbidding certain practices that restrain competition. In the early 1900s, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Act applied only to unreasonable restraints of trade and thus could be used only against blatant cases of monopoly.
Wall Street Words: An A to Z Guide to Investment Terms for Today's Investor by David L. Scott. Copyright © 2003 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. All rights reserved.

Sherman Antitrust Act

One of the antitrust laws designed to encourage competition and discourage monopolies.

The Complete Real Estate Encyclopedia by Denise L. Evans, JD & O. William Evans, JD. Copyright © 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
References in periodicals archive ?
"direct/indirect" formula in the Sherman Act context into the
In 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Act, recognizing the importance of legislating to address the growing problem of oppressive cartel and monopoly activity 23 Since its enactment, the Sherman Act has been the preeminent basis for antitrust regulation in the United States and represents the societal goal of striking a balance between fostering competitive behavior and protecting the players within those markets.
The Parker doctrine of state action immunity from antitrust has not developed to immunize state regulation from Sherman Act preemption as strongly as Parker's language would suggest, and the doctrine's evolution continues.
With a dominant platform, the Justice Department, state attorneys general, or private plaintiffs could bring a monopolization case, claiming a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. (84) As previously explained, plaintiffs generally prove the monopoly power element of the monopolization offense by showing that the defendant platform has a high market share.
(4) recognize that a group collection strategy does not violate the Sherman Act. The key for group collection action is group members do not agree to refuse to sell to the customer or extend terms as a strategy to collect their debt.
This Essay offers a defense of Justice Scalia's approach to the Sherman Act. For one thing, the approach broke little new ground, either in general or as applied in cases such as Business Electronics.
In March 2013, after a jury trial, the jury found Defendants liable for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The district court then awarded Plaintiffs approximately $147 million in damages and issued a permanent injunction barring Defendants from further violating the Sherman Act.
(9) And, finally, under some circumstances, state regulations that delegate the power to restrict competition to nonstate actors must yield to the Sherman Act's procompetition policy.
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp,, (24) the Supreme Court observed that "primary-line competitive injury under the Robinson-Patman Act is of the same general character as the injury inflected by predatory pricing schemes actionable under [section] 2 of the Sherman Act." (25) As a result, the Court brushed aside contrary precedent and ruled that the standards for liability in a primary line Robinson-Patman case are essentially the same as those in a Sherman Act case.
To give more meaning to the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act was subsequently enacted.
Earlier this year, in North Carolina State Board, the Supreme Court held that North Carolina's state board of dental examiners was subject to antitrust scrutiny under the Sherman Act and Federal Trade Commission Act, rejecting the board's claim of immunity as a state actor under Parker v.
ANTITRUST LAW--Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act Does Not Alter Sherman Act's Coverage of Import Trade--United States v.