Now I got that Ken Elzinga, David Mills and My 1995 Supreme Court Economic Review Paper, “A Supreme Court Prediction Odyssey: From Fruitcake to Cigarettes,” available at JSTOR.. (I am posting it here in an effort to keep as much of a record of my posts as possible at Cafe Hike.)
Abstract:
Brooke Group, Ltd. v Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation. – The Supreme Court’s first predatory pricing decision under the Robinson-Patman Act in 1967 vs. Utah Pa. – clarifies the Court’s skepticism about predatory pricing. root Brock, plaintiffs must show that a defendant not only has a real possibility of damages or discipline, but also that the defendant has a strong expectation of recovering the damages caused by the defendant. While appreciating the court’s decision, the authors question the rejection of the court’s decision to reject the rule of law that governs the demotion of uncooperative conflict police members. For the reasons set out by the Court itself, price-cutting behavior by non-cooperative members of oligopolies cannot be considered a successful form of monopoly control, so pricing behavior must be governed by per se legality.
