Preview

Sherman Anti-Trust Act (Constitutional Law)

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
790 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Sherman Anti-Trust Act (Constitutional Law)
To: Reader
From:
Re: Sherman Antitrust Act

Facts
John Davison Rockefeller was the founder of Standard Oil Company in 1870 and ran it until he retired in 1897. Standard Oil gained almost complete control over the oil refining market in the United States by underselling its competitors. Rockefeller and his associates owned dozens of corporations operating in just one state.
The Sherman Antitrust Act was enacted on July 2nd, 1890 which prohibits activities that restrict interstate commerce and competition in the marketplace.

Issue Cal Hockley owns numerous steel mills in 1912. Cal believed that if he was taken to court for breaking the Sherman Antitrust Act that his lawyers would simply argue that Cal is not in violation of the act because his steel mills are entirely intrastate activities, so the federal government would have no control over him. However, one of Cal’s colleagues argued that it did not work out that way for Standard Oil. The question is whether Cal is correct and that in 1912 this would be a viable defense or if, even though the mills are entirely intrastate, he would still be subject to the Sherman antitrust act.

Applicable Law In United States v. Patten, 226 U.S. 525 (U.S. 1913), the defendants were charged with violating the Sherman Anti-trust Act by conspiring to run a corner on the cotton market. Ultimately, Patten was attempting to raise the prices of cotton throughout the country. The Supreme Court sustained the charges against the defendant of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. In Patten, the Supreme Court found that “although carried on wholly within a State, if the necessary operation of a combination is to directly impede and burden the due course of interstate commerce, it is within the prohibition of the statute.” In United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1911), the United States filed suit against multiple defendants in the tobacco industry for violating the Sherman Antitrust

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    MT445 Unit 4

    • 523 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Adams, W., & Brock, J. (1991). Antitrust economics on trial : Dialogue in new .…

    • 523 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    MKC1 study guide

    • 2410 Words
    • 11 Pages

    accused of overcharging consumers. Which federal law would have allowed the United States government to investigate this unfair method of competition?…

    • 2410 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the 1950 case of P. Lorillard Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, P. Lorillard Co., the makers of Old Gold cigarettes, were ordered to “cease and desist from making certain representations found to be false in the advertising of its tobacco products (Warner, et al., 2012, p. 950) From a practical perspective in the 1950’s caveat emptor, or “let the buyer beware” is not a fair or reasonable expectation. While the careful consumer could have looked at the article, the culture of the time was not anti-smoking as it is today. The careful consumer at the time was not savvy to the wealth of scientific data regarding smoking and health. The actual ad, see Figure 1: 1942 WW2 Era Old Gold Santa Cigarette Ad, states that the impartial tests were not done to boost sales or claim superiority of brand. The ad misleads the consumer to believe that it was impartially discovered that Old Gold had the stated attributes.…

    • 602 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    ORIGIN: - Adopted into Federal Law in 1936. In 1936, Congress passed additional antitrust legislation in the Robinson-Patman Act (“the Act”), which banned any individual or business engaged in interstate commerce to sell the same products to different consumer groups, with the goal or effect of lessening competition, or creating a monopoly. (LEGAL DICTIONERY,NA)…

    • 569 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    DiLorenzo believed the Sherman Antitrust act was “ Protectionist at its roots” (pg141). The government was using this so that incompetent businesses would be protected. According to Dilorenzo there was no proof that monopolies were hurting the country. In fact , there was a deflation during the late 19th century , prices were decreasing which would benefit consumers . The Sherman Act support came from less competitive firms that wanted to break up their more successful rivals. An example Dilorenzo gave was cotton farms. They were upset that jute was being used to cover cotton bales instead of cotton. They petition government to restrain jute farmers. Small firms had more power than the big ones, because if big firms had as much power as Yellow…

    • 141 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The antitrust laws were adopted by Congress to outlaw or restrict business practices that were considered to be monopolistic or which restrained interstate commerce.…

    • 640 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    With this borrowed money and the money he had made with his other business, he bought the largest oil refinery in Cleveland, Ohio and started Standard Oil. Rockefeller formed Standard Oil with his younger brother William Rockefeller, Henry Flagler, and a group of other men. John was the company’s president and the largest shareholder. Over the next few years, Rockefeller made new partners and grew his business interest in the growing oil industry. In 1882 these companies combined to form the Standard Oil Trust. This trust would soon control about 90% of the nation’s refineries and pipelines in America. One of the reasons Standard Oil was so successful was that they bought rival companies and started companies for distributing and marketing their products. “In order to exploit economies of scale, Standard Oil did everything from building it’s own barrels to employing scientists to figure out a use for petroleum by products.” Because of Rockefeller’s enormous wealth and fame, he was often the target of people spreading rumours about how he ran his business and how he became successful. As the New York Times reported in 1937: “ He was accused of crushing out competition, getting rich on rebates from railroads, bribing men to spy on competing companies, making secret agreements, coercing rivals to join the Standard Oil Trust under threat of being forced out of business, building up enormous fortunes on the ruins of other men, and so…

    • 607 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Ida Tarbell

    • 333 Words
    • 2 Pages

    3. As a result of Ida Tarbell, there was a report filed against Rockefeller, accusing him of creating and organizing a Monopoly. He went to Supreme Court; they ordered the dissolution of the Standard Oil Company ruling it in violation of the Sherman antitrust act. The court forced Standard Oil to break into thirty four independent companies spread across the country.…

    • 333 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    This short article by Douglas A. McIntyre paints a very good picture of how many of the American Technologies companies are pure monopolies within this industry. McIntyre opens this article by saying “A monopoly is either what the government says it is or what a dominant company’s competitors claim. The Governments opinion is the only one that counts….” (McIntyre, 2012). McIntyre then mentioned that there was this Act that prohibits businesses from activities that are found to be anticompetitive that is called the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act. After seeing this, I was curious of what was the true meaning behind this Act and after a few searches I found that according to Wikipedia, “The Sherman Antitrust Act is a landmark…

    • 715 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Standard Oil because of its size took advantage of competitors by underpricing and threatening suppliers and distributors (Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. the United States, 1911). Under the Sherman Antitrust Act, the government attempted to prosecute Standard Oil. Nevertheless, the…

    • 172 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    Us vs Morrison

    • 955 Words
    • 4 Pages

    There are three broad categories under the Commerce Clause that is considered in the case. The first category states “Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce.” Second, “Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities.” Third, “Congress’ commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.” (Mallor, Barnes, Bowers, Langvardt, 2003)…

    • 955 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was an early attempt to try to control abuses by large combinations of businesses called trusts. The Act was weakened by the Supreme Court used against labor unions rather than against monopolies. Roosevelt's first push for reform on the national level began with a secret antitrust investigation of the J. P. Morgan's Northern Securities Company whom monopolized railroad traffic. After successfully using his powers in government to control businesses, Roosevelt used the Sherman Antitrust Act against forty-three "bad" trusts that broke the law and left the "good" trusts alone.…

    • 469 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Prisoners Rights

    • 1727 Words
    • 7 Pages

    "Cooper v. Pate." US Supreme Court Cases & Opinions from Justia &USs court Forms and Oyez. 29Apr06. http://supreme.justia.com/us/378/546/case.html…

    • 1727 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    Role and Function of Law

    • 1104 Words
    • 5 Pages

    In the case of Cipollone vs. Liggett, the plaintiff, Cipollone, filed a lawsuit against tobacco manufacturer Liggett for violating New Jersey State statutes dealing with consumer protections (Melvin, 2011). The case was heard by the United States Supreme Court because of the contention that the New Jersey statutes were in conflict with United States federal law. The authority of the Court to hear a case of conflict between federal and state laws was spelled out in the case titled Marbury…

    • 1104 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    As stated in the case from our assigned readings, Cipollone filed suit against Liggett, including other cigarette producers, whom he believed were in violation of various consumer protection laws. He claimed his mothers’ death was the direct result of these companies misrepresenting their product in the state of New Jersey through the use of fabricated advertising, deceptive information regarding smoking hazards, and collusion to forego medical and scientific information with respect to the dangers of smoking. For these reasons, he believed they were at fault. Liggett argued that two federal laws superseded New Jersey law (Melvin, 2011.)…

    • 801 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays