ftc
ticor
title
ins
argued
january
decided
june
petitioner
federal
trade
commission
filed
administrative
complaint
charging
respondent
title
insurance
companies
horizontal
price
fixing
setting
fees
title
searches
examinations
violation
federal
trade
commission
act
four
issue
connecticut
wisconsin
arizona
montana
uniform
rates
established
rating
bureau
licensed
state
authorized
establish
joint
rates
members
rate
filings
made
state
insurance
office
became
effective
unless
state
rejected
within
specified
period
administrative
law
judge
held
inter
alia
rates
fixed
four
wisconsin
montana
respondents
anticompetitive
activities
entitled
state
action
immunity
contemplated
parker
brown
progeny
doctrine
state
law
regulatory
scheme
basis
antitrust
immunity
state
articulated
clear
affirmative
policy
allow
anticompetitive
conduct
provides
active
supervision
anticompetitive
conduct
undertaken
private
actors
california
retail
liquor
dealers
assn
midcal
aluminum
commission
conceded
first
part
test
met
held
review
none
conducted
sufficient
supervision
warrant
immunity
appeals
reversed
holding
existence
state
regulatory
program
staffed
funded
empowered
law
satisfied
active
supervision
requirement
thus
concluded
respondents
conduct
entitled
state
action
immunity
held
state
action
immunity
available
regulatory
schemes
montana
wisconsin
pp
principles
federalism
require
federal
antitrust
laws
subject
supersession
state
regulatory
programs
parker
supra
midcal
supra
patrick
burget
midcal
test
confirms
may
confer
antitrust
immunity
private
persons
fiat
actual
state
involvement
precondition
immunity
conferred
respect
state
ongoing
regulation
economics
price
restraint
purpose
active
supervision
inquiry
determine
whether
state
exercised
sufficient
independent
judgment
control
details
rates
prices
established
product
deliberate
state
intervention
although
immunity
doctrine
developed
actions
brought
sherman
act
issue
whether
applies
commission
action
federal
trade
commission
act
need
determined
since
commission
assert
superior
preemption
authority
pp
wisconsin
montana
correctly
contend
broad
interpretation
state
action
immunity
serve
best
interests
doctrine
impede
rather
advance
freedom
action
required
act
shadow
immunity
whenever
entered
realm
economic
regulation
insistence
real
compliance
parts
midcal
test
serves
make
clear
responsible
sanctioned
undertaken
control
respondents
contention
concerns
better
addressed
first
part
midcal
test
misapprehends
close
relation
midcal
two
elements
directed
ensuring
particular
anticompetitive
mechanisms
operate
deliberate
intended
state
policy
clear
policy
statement
ensures
state
act
inadvertence
state
approved
anticompetitive
conduct
sole
reliance
clear
articulation
requirement
allow
sufficient
regulatory
flexibility
pp
prices
rates
initially
set
private
parties
subject
veto
state
chooses
party
claiming
immunity
must
show
state
officials
undertaken
necessary
steps
determine
specifics
scheme
mere
potential
state
supervision
adequate
substitute
state
decision
thus
standard
relied
appeals
case
insufficient
establish
requisite
level
active
supervision
commission
findings
fact
demonstrate
potential
state
supervision
realized
either
wisconsin
montana
rate
filings
checked
mathematical
accuracy
unchecked
altogether
moreover
one
rate
filing
became
effective
montana
despite
rating
bureau
failure
provide
requested
information
additional
information
provided
wisconsin
seven
years
time
another
rate
filing
remained
effect
absent
active
supervision
state
action
immunity
otherwise
private
arrangements
state
judicial
review
fill
void
see
patrick
supra
decision
southern
motor
carriers
rate
conference
involved
similar
negative
option
regime
contrary
since
involved
question
whether
first
part
midcal
test
met
case
involves
horizontal
vague
imprimatur
form
agency
inaction
fact
read
light
gravity
antitrust
offense
involvement
private
actors
throughout
clear
absence
state
supervision
pp
appeals
opportunity
reexamine
determinations
respect
connecticut
arizona
order
address
whether
accorded
proper
deference
commission
factual
findings
extent
state
supervision
kennedy
delivered
opinion
white
blackmun
stevens
scalia
souter
joined
scalia
filed
concurring
opinion
post
rehnquist
filed
dissenting
opinion
thomas
joined
post
filed
dissenting
opinion
thomas
joined
post
deputy
solicitor
general
wallace
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
solicitor
general
starr
assistant
attorney
general
rill
robert
long
james
spears
jay
shaffer
ernest
isenstadt
michael
antalics
ann
malester
john
christie
argued
cause
respondents
brief
patrick
roach
john
graybeal
david
foster
brief
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
state
wisconsin
et
al
james
doyle
attorney
general
wisconsin
kevin
assistant
attorney
general
joseph
curran
attorney
general
maryland
robert
mcdonald
ellen
cooper
assistant
attorneys
general
james
evans
attorney
general
alabama
charles
cole
attorney
general
alaska
james
forbes
assistant
attorney
general
grant
woods
attorney
general
arizona
jeri
auther
assistant
attorney
general
winston
bryant
attorney
general
arkansas
royce
griffin
deputy
attorney
general
charles
oberly
iii
attorney
general
delaware
robert
butterworth
attorney
general
florida
larry
echohawk
attorney
general
idaho
brett
delange
deputy
attorney
general
bonnie
campbell
attorney
general
iowa
john
perkins
deputy
attorney
general
frederic
cowan
attorney
general
kentucky
james
ringo
assistant
attorney
general
william
guste
attorney
general
louisiana
jesse
james
marks
anne
benoit
assistant
attorneys
general
michael
carpenter
attorney
general
maine
stephen
wessler
deputy
attorney
general
scott
harshbarger
attorney
general
massachusetts
george
weber
thomas
alpert
assistant
attorneys
general
frank
kelley
attorney
general
michigan
hubert
humphrey
iii
attorney
general
minnesota
mike
moore
attorney
general
mississippi
marc
racicot
attorney
general
montana
frankie
sue
del
papa
nevada
john
arnold
attorney
general
new
hampshire
charles
putnam
senior
assistant
attorney
general
walter
maroney
assistant
attorney
general
robert
del
tufo
attorney
general
new
jersey
laurel
price
deputy
attorney
general
robert
abrams
attorney
general
new
york
jerry
boone
solicitor
general
george
sampson
richard
schwartz
assistant
attorneys
general
lacy
thornburg
attorney
general
north
carolina
james
gulick
special
deputy
attorney
general
sturgis
assistant
attorney
general
nicholas
spaeth
attorney
general
north
dakota
david
huey
assistant
attorney
general
lee
fisher
attorney
general
ohio
marc
bandman
assistant
attorney
general
susan
loving
attorney
general
oklahoma
jane
wheeler
assistant
attorney
general
ernest
preate
attorney
general
pennsylvania
thomas
welch
chief
deputy
attorney
general
carl
hisiro
assistant
chief
deputy
attorney
general
james
attorney
general
rhode
island
edmund
murray
special
assistant
attorney
general
charles
burson
attorney
general
tennessee
john
knox
walkup
solicitor
general
perry
craft
deputy
attorney
general
dan
morales
attorney
general
texas
pryor
first
assistant
attorney
general
mary
keller
deputy
attorney
general
mark
tobey
assistant
attorney
general
paul
van
dam
attorney
general
utah
jeffrey
amestoy
attorney
general
vermont
geoffrey
yudien
assistant
attorney
general
mary
sue
terry
attorney
general
virginia
kenneth
eikenberry
attorney
general
washington
carol
smith
assistant
attorney
general
mario
palumbo
attorney
general
west
virginia
donald
darling
joseph
meyer
attorney
general
wyoming
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
state
california
et
al
daniel
lungren
attorney
general
california
roderick
walston
chief
assistant
attorney
general
thomas
gede
special
assistant
attorney
general
gale
norton
attorney
general
colorado
stenberg
attorney
general
nebraska
mark
barnett
attorney
general
south
dakota
american
insurance
association
et
al
john
nolan
craig
berrington
james
bradner
theresa
sorota
patrick
mcnally
hartford
fire
insurance
et
al
stephen
shapiro
mark
levy
andrew
pincus
roy
englert
national
council
compensation
insurance
jerome
hochberg
mark
solomons
briefs
amici
curiae
filed
american
land
title
association
philip
rudolph
james
maher
pennsylvania
electric
association
jeffrey
howard
justice
kennedy
delivered
opinion
federal
trade
commission
filed
administrative
complaint
six
nation
largest
title
insurance
companies
alleging
horizontal
fees
title
searches
title
examinations
one
company
settled
consent
decree
five
firms
continue
contest
matter
commission
charged
title
companies
violating
federal
trade
commission
act
stat
prohibits
nfair
methods
competition
affecting
commerce
one
principal
defenses
companies
assert
state
action
immunity
antitrust
prosecution
contemplated
line
cases
beginning
parker
brown
commission
rejected
defense
ticor
title
ins
firms
sought
review
appeals
third
circuit
ruling
state
action
immunity
available
state
regulatory
schemes
question
appeals
reversed
granted
certiorari
title
insurance
business
insuring
record
title
real
property
persons
interest
estate
including
owners
occupiers
lenders
title
insurance
policy
insures
certain
losses
damages
sustained
reason
defect
title
shown
policy
title
report
refers
issuing
title
insurance
policy
insurance
company
one
agents
performs
title
search
examination
search
produces
chronological
list
public
documents
chain
title
real
property
examination
critical
analysis
interpretation
condition
title
revealed
documents
disclosed
search
title
search
examination
major
components
insurance
company
services
certain
variances
state
state
policy
policy
brief
summary
functions
performed
title
companies
given
insurance
companies
exclude
coverage
defects
uncovered
search
insurers
conduct
searches
order
inform
insured
reduce
liability
identifying
excluding
known
risks
insured
protected
losses
resulting
title
defects
discoverable
search
public
records
forgery
missing
heirs
previous
marriages
impersonation
confusion
names
protected
also
errors
mistakes
search
examination
negligence
need
proved
order
recover
title
insurance
also
includes
obligation
defend
event
insured
sued
reason
defect
within
scope
policy
guarantee
title
insurance
industry
earned
billion
gross
revenues
respondents
accounted
percent
amount
four
respondents
nation
largest
title
insurance
companies
ticor
title
insurance
percent
market
chicago
title
insurance
percent
lawyers
title
insurance
percent
safeco
title
insurance
operating
name
security
union
title
insurance
percent
stewart
title
guarantee
percent
market
country
eighth
largest
title
insurer
strong
position
west
southwest
app
pet
cert
commission
issued
administrative
complaint
horizontal
price
fixing
alleged
terms
respondents
agreed
prices
charged
title
search
examination
services
settlement
services
rating
bureaus
various
examples
one
respondents
fixed
prices
respondents
competitors
part
search
examination
services
settlement
services
arizona
connecticut
idaho
louisiana
montana
new
jersey
new
mexico
new
york
ohio
oregon
pennsylvania
wisconsin
wyoming
administrative
law
judge
alj
respondents
defended
liability
three
related
grounds
first
maintained
challenged
conduct
exempt
antitrust
scrutiny
act
stat
confers
antitrust
immunity
business
insurance
extent
regulated
state
law
second
argued
collective
ratemaking
activities
exempt
doctrine
places
certain
oint
efforts
influence
public
officials
beyond
reach
antitrust
laws
mine
workers
pennington
eastern
railroad
presidents
conference
noerr
motor
freight
third
respondents
contended
activities
entitled
state
action
immunity
permits
anticompetitive
conduct
authorized
supervised
state
officials
see
california
retail
liquor
dealers
assn
midcal
aluminum
parker
brown
app
pet
cert
one
state
ohio
respondents
contended
rates
title
search
examination
settlement
set
rating
bureau
title
insurance
company
rates
practices
subject
initial
complaint
matter
decided
alj
commission
declined
pursue
complaint
regard
fees
five
louisiana
new
mexico
new
york
oregon
wyoming
upon
recommendation
alj
commission
pursue
complaint
regard
fees
two
additional
idaho
ohio
left
six
commission
found
antitrust
violations
two
new
jersey
pennsylvania
commission
conceded
issue
certiorari
sought
regulatory
regimes
two
us
four
remain
violations
alleged
connecticut
wisconsin
arizona
montana
alj
held
rates
search
examination
services
fixed
four
reasons
need
pause
examine
alt
rejected
defenses
alj
turned
attention
question
state
action
immunity
summary
alj
extensive
findings
point
necessary
full
understanding
decisions
reached
level
proceedings
case
rating
bureaus
private
entities
organized
title
insurance
companies
establish
uniform
rates
members
alt
found
evidence
collective
setting
title
insurance
rates
rating
bureaus
way
pooling
risk
information
indeed
found
evidence
title
insurer
sets
rates
according
actuarial
loss
experience
instead
alj
found
usual
practice
rating
bureaus
set
rates
according
profitability
studies
focus
costs
conducting
searches
examinations
uniform
rates
set
notwithstanding
differences
efficiencies
costs
among
individual
members
app
pet
cert
alj
described
regulatory
regimes
title
insurance
rates
four
still
issue
one
title
insurance
rating
bureau
licensed
state
authorized
establish
joint
rates
members
four
used
come
called
negative
option
system
approve
rate
filings
bureaus
negative
option
system
rating
bureau
filed
rates
title
searches
title
examinations
state
insurance
office
rates
became
effective
unless
state
rejected
within
specified
period
days
although
negative
option
system
provided
theoretical
mechanism
substantive
review
alj
determined
making
detailed
findings
regarding
operation
regulatory
regime
rate
filings
subject
minimal
scrutiny
state
regulators
connecticut
state
insurance
department
authority
audit
rating
bureau
hold
hearings
regarding
rates
done
connecticut
rating
bureau
filed
two
major
rate
increases
circumstances
behind
rate
increase
somewhat
obscure
alj
found
insurance
department
asked
rating
bureau
submit
additional
information
justifying
increase
later
approved
rate
increase
although
evidence
additional
information
provided
connecticut
rating
bureau
filed
percent
rate
increase
factual
background
rate
increase
better
developed
though
testimony
somewhat
inconsistent
state
insurance
official
testified
reviewed
rate
increase
care
discussed
various
components
increase
rating
bureau
official
testified
however
lacked
authority
question
certain
expense
data
considered
quite
high
wisconsin
state
insurance
commissioner
required
examine
rating
bureau
regular
intervals
authorized
reject
rates
process
hearings
neither
done
wisconsin
rating
bureau
made
major
rate
filings
rate
filing
approved
although
supporting
justification
requested
state
insurance
commissioner
provided
rate
filing
requested
percent
rate
increase
increase
approved
office
insurance
commissioner
checked
supporting
data
accuracy
one
agency
inquired
insurer
expenses
though
official
testified
substantive
scrutiny
possible
without
inquiry
rate
increase
received
cursory
reading
office
insurance
commissioner
supporting
materials
checked
accuracy
though
absence
objection
agency
rate
increase
went
effect
arizona
insurance
director
required
examine
rating
bureau
least
every
five
years
done
state
insurance
department
announced
comprehensive
investigation
rating
bureau
conducted
rating
bureau
spent
time
justifying
escrow
rates
following
conclusion
federal
civil
suit
challenging
joint
fixing
escrow
rates
rating
bureau
went
business
without
made
major
rate
filings
though
proposed
minor
rate
adjustments
montana
rating
bureau
made
major
rate
filing
connection
representative
rating
bureau
met
officials
state
insurance
department
told
filed
rates
go
immediate
effect
though
profit
data
provided
alj
found
evidence
additional
data
furnished
complete
background
alj
observed
none
rating
bureaus
active
respondents
abandoned
response
numerous
private
suits
time
commission
filed
formal
complaint
rating
bureaus
dismantled
alj
held
case
moot
though
nothing
preclude
respondents
resuming
conduct
challenged
commission
see
grant
factual
determinations
established
alj
addressed
test
must
satisfied
state
action
immunity
antitrust
laws
test
set
california
retail
liquor
dealers
assn
midcal
aluminum
state
law
regulatory
scheme
basis
antitrust
immunity
unless
first
state
articulated
clear
affirmative
policy
allow
anticompetitive
conduct
second
state
provides
active
supervision
anticompetitive
conduct
undertaken
private
actors
commission
conceded
first
part
test
satisfied
four
still
issue
immunity
question
beginning
hearings
alj
later
proceedings
turned
upon
proper
interpretation
application
midcal
active
supervision
requirement
alj
found
active
supervision
test
met
arizona
montana
connecticut
wisconsin
app
pet
cert
review
alj
decision
commission
held
none
four
conducted
sufficient
supervision
title
companies
entitled
immunity
jurisdictions
appeals
third
circuit
disagreed
commission
adopting
approach
first
circuit
new
england
motor
rate
bureau
ftc
held
existence
state
regulatory
program
staffed
funded
empowered
law
satisfied
requirement
active
supervision
standard
appeals
third
circuit
ruled
active
state
supervision
requirement
met
four
held
respondents
conduct
entitled
immunity
granted
certiorari
consider
two
questions
first
whether
third
circuit
correct
statement
law
application
law
fact
second
whether
third
circuit
exceeded
authority
departing
factual
findings
entered
alj
adopted
commission
parties
confined
briefing
first
questions
regulatory
regimes
wisconsin
montana
focused
regulatory
regimes
connecticut
arizona
briefing
second
question
reverse
appeals
first
question
remand
proceedings
second
ii
preservation
free
market
system
free
enterprise
without
cartels
essential
economic
freedom
topco
associates
national
policy
pervasive
fundamental
character
essential
part
economic
legal
system
within
separate
administer
laws
protection
advancement
people
continued
enforcement
national
antitrust
policy
grants
freedom
less
deciding
whether
subject
discrete
parts
economy
additional
regulations
controls
background
parker
brown
upheld
market
sharing
scheme
sherman
act
challenge
announced
doctrine
federal
antitrust
laws
subject
supersession
state
regulatory
programs
decision
grounded
principles
federalism
principle
freedom
action
adopted
foster
preserve
federal
system
explains
later
evolution
application
parker
doctrine
decisions
midcal
supra
patrick
burget
midcal
invalidated
california
statute
forbidding
licensees
wine
trade
sell
prices
set
producer
announced
test
applicable
instances
private
parties
participate
regime
first
challenged
restraint
must
one
clearly
articulated
affirmatively
expressed
state
policy
second
policy
must
actively
supervised
state
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
midcal
confirms
state
may
confer
antitrust
immunity
private
persons
fiat
may
displace
competition
active
state
supervision
displacement
intended
state
implemented
specific
details
actual
state
involvement
deference
private
arrangements
general
auspices
state
law
precondition
immunity
federal
law
immunity
conferred
respect
ongoing
regulation
state
respect
economics
price
restraint
midcal
found
intent
restrain
prices
expressed
sufficient
precision
first
part
test
met
absence
state
participation
mechanics
price
posting
apparent
requirement
active
supervision
met
ibid
rationale
elaborated
patrick
burget
patrick
alleged
private
physicians
participated
state
peer
review
system
order
injure
destroy
competition
denying
hospital
privileges
physician
begun
competing
clinic
referred
purpose
preserving
state
administrative
policies
distinct
allowing
private
parties
foreclose
competition
following
passage
active
supervision
requirement
stems
recognition
private
party
engaging
anticompetitive
activity
real
danger
acting
interests
rather
governmental
interests
state
requirement
designed
ensure
state
action
doctrine
shelter
particular
anticompetitive
acts
private
parties
judgment
state
actually
state
regulatory
policies
accomplish
purpose
active
supervision
requirement
mandates
state
exercise
ultimate
control
challenged
anticompetitive
conduct
mere
presence
state
involvement
monitoring
suffice
active
supervision
prong
midcal
test
requires
state
officials
exercise
power
review
particular
anticompetitive
acts
private
parties
disapprove
fail
accord
state
policy
absent
program
supervision
realistic
assurance
private
party
anticompetitive
conduct
promotes
state
policy
rather
merely
party
individual
interests
internal
quotation
marks
citations
omitted
decisions
make
clear
purpose
active
supervision
inquiry
determine
whether
state
met
normative
standard
efficiency
regulatory
practices
purpose
determine
whether
state
exercised
sufficient
independent
judgment
control
details
rates
prices
established
product
deliberate
state
intervention
simply
agreement
among
private
parties
much
causation
inquiries
analysis
asks
whether
state
played
substantial
role
determining
specifics
economic
policy
question
well
state
regulation
works
whether
anticompetitive
scheme
state
although
point
bears
brief
mention
observe
prior
cases
considered
state
action
immunity
actions
brought
sherman
act
case
arises
federal
trade
commission
act
commission
argued
times
state
action
immunity
apply
commission
action
federal
trade
commission
act
see
bureau
consumer
protection
staff
report
federal
trade
commission
prescription
drug
price
disclosures
chs
vi
see
also
note
state
action
exemption
antitrust
enforcement
federal
trade
commission
act
leading
treatise
expressed
skepticism
view
see
areeda
turner
antitrust
law
need
determine
whether
antitrust
statutes
distinguished
basis
commission
assert
superior
preemption
authority
instant
matter
apply
prior
cases
one
us
respondents
contend
principles
federalism
justify
broad
interpretation
state
action
immunity
powerful
refutation
viewpoint
briefs
filed
case
state
wisconsin
joined
montana
filed
brief
amici
curiae
precise
point
deny
respondents
broad
immunity
rule
serve
best
interests
agreement
amici
submission
must
act
shadow
state
action
immunity
whenever
enter
realm
economic
regulation
doctrine
impede
freedom
action
advance
fact
matter
regulate
economies
many
ways
inconsistent
antitrust
laws
example
oregon
may
provide
peer
review
physicians
without
approving
anticompetitive
conduct
see
patrick
michigan
may
regulate
public
utilities
without
authorizing
monopolization
market
electric
light
bulbs
see
cantor
detroit
edison
held
state
action
immunity
disfavored
much
repeals
implication
lafayette
louisiana
power
light
adhering
cases
fundamental
accepted
assumptions
benefits
competition
within
framework
antitrust
laws
increase
regulatory
flexibility
must
accept
political
responsibility
actions
intend
undertake
quite
different
matter
however
federal
law
compel
result
intend
held
account
federalism
serves
assign
political
responsibility
obscure
neither
federalism
political
responsibility
well
served
rule
essential
national
policies
displaced
state
regulations
intended
achieve
limited
ends
choose
displace
free
market
regulation
insistence
real
compliance
parts
midcal
test
serve
make
clear
state
responsible
sanctioned
undertaken
control
respondents
contend
concerns
better
addressed
requirement
articulate
clear
policy
displace
antitrust
laws
forms
economic
regulation
contention
misapprehends
close
relation
midcal
two
elements
directed
ensuring
particular
anticompetitive
mechanisms
operate
deliberate
intended
state
policy
see
patrick
supra
usual
case
midcal
requirement
state
articulate
clear
policy
shows
little
state
acted
inadvertence
alone
ensure
required
precedents
particular
anticompetitive
conduct
approved
state
seems
plain
moreover
light
amici
curiae
brief
referred
sole
reliance
requirement
clear
articulation
allow
regulatory
flexibility
deem
necessary
whose
object
benefit
citizens
regulation
broad
doctrine
state
action
immunity
may
serve
nothing
attractive
nuisance
economic
sphere
oppose
pressures
sole
reliance
requirement
clear
articulation
become
rather
meaningless
formal
constraint
iii
case
us
appeals
relied
upon
formulation
active
supervision
requirement
articulated
first
circuit
state
program
place
staffed
funded
grants
state
officials
ample
power
duty
regulate
pursuant
declared
standards
state
policy
enforceable
state
courts
demonstrates
basic
level
activity
directed
towards
seeing
private
actors
carry
state
policy
simply
policy
need
established
quoting
new
england
motor
rate
bureau
ftc
theory
standard
articulated
first
circuit
might
applied
manner
consistent
precedents
seems
us
insufficient
establish
requisite
level
active
supervision
criteria
set
forth
first
circuit
may
relevance
beginning
point
active
state
supervision
inquiry
analysis
end
prices
rates
set
initial
matter
private
parties
subject
veto
state
chooses
exercise
party
claiming
immunity
must
show
state
officials
undertaken
necessary
steps
determine
specifics
scheme
mere
potential
state
supervision
adequate
substitute
decision
state
standards
must
conclude
active
supervision
either
wisconsin
montana
respondents
point
wisconsin
montana
rating
bureaus
filed
rates
state
agencies
negative
option
rule
prevailed
rates
became
effective
unless
rejected
within
set
time
said
matter
law
inaction
signified
substantive
approval
proposition
reconciled
however
detailed
findings
entered
alj
adopted
commission
demonstrate
potential
state
supervision
realized
fact
alj
found
commission
agreed
rate
filings
checked
mathematical
accuracy
unchecked
altogether
montana
rate
filing
became
effective
despite
failure
rating
bureau
provide
additional
requested
information
wisconsin
additional
information
provided
lapse
seven
years
time
rate
filing
remained
effect
findings
fatal
respondents
attempts
portray
state
regulatory
regimes
providing
necessary
component
active
supervision
findings
demonstrate
whatever
potential
state
regulatory
review
wisconsin
montana
active
state
supervision
occur
absence
active
supervision
fact
state
action
immunity
otherwise
private
arrangements
patrick
availability
state
judicial
review
fill
void
state
agencies
limited
role
participation
state
judicial
review
likewise
limited
see
patrick
decision
southern
motor
carriers
rate
conference
though
involved
negative
option
regime
contrary
question
whether
first
part
midcal
test
met
government
contention
pricing
policy
articulated
one
unless
practice
compelled
rejected
assertion
undertook
real
examination
active
supervision
aspect
case
government
conceded
second
part
test
met
concession
background
district
determination
although
submitted
rates
go
effect
without
state
activity
state
ordered
held
ratemaking
hearings
consistent
basis
using
industry
submissions
beginning
point
see
state
southern
motor
carrier
rate
conference
supp
nd
case
us
course
commission
concedes
first
part
midcal
requirement
litigates
second
finding
substantial
state
participation
scheme
case
involves
horizontal
vague
imprimatur
form
agency
inaction
fact
antitrust
offense
pernicious
ftc
superior
trial
lawyers
context
decline
formulate
rule
lead
finding
active
state
supervision
fact
none
decision
read
light
gravity
antitrust
offense
involvement
private
actors
throughout
clear
absence
state
supervision
imply
particular
form
state
local
regulation
required
achieve
ends
establishment
uniform
prices
cf
columbia
omni
outdoor
advertising
city
billboard
zoning
ordinance
entitled
state
action
immunity
us
case
governmental
actors
made
unilateral
decisions
without
participation
private
actors
cf
fisher
berkeley
private
actors
liable
without
private
action
call
question
regulatory
regime
sampling
techniques
specified
rate
return
allow
state
regulators
provide
comprehensive
supervision
without
complete
control
infrequent
lapse
state
supervision
cf
liquor
duffy
statute
specifying
margin
wholesale
retail
prices
may
satisfy
active
supervision
requirement
circumstances
case
however
conclude
acts
respondents
montana
wisconsin
immune
antitrust
liability
iv
granting
certiorari
undertook
review
contention
commission
appeals
incorrect
disregarding
commission
findings
extent
state
supervision
parties
focused
briefing
question
regulatory
schemes
connecticut
arizona
think
appeals
opportunity
reexamine
determinations
respect
latter
two
light
views
expressed
judgment
appeals
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
justice
scalia
concurring
standard
view
faithful
cases
said
active
supervision
hand
think
chief
justice
justice
correct
standard
fertile
source
uncertainty
hence
litigation
produce
total
abandonment
state
programs
private
individuals
take
chance
participating
true
moreover
negative
option
context
even
context
involved
patrick
burget
private
physicians
invited
participate
hospital
peer
review
system
may
know
participation
occurred
indeed
trial
completed
whether
state
supervision
active
enough
willing
accept
consequences
see
alternative
within
constraints
active
supervision
doctrine
challenged
skeptical
parker
brown
exemption
private
collusion
first
place
chief
justice
rehnquist
justice
justice
thomas
join
dissenting
holds
today
satisfy
active
supervision
requirement
immunity
antitrust
liability
private
parties
acting
pursuant
regulatory
scheme
enacted
state
legislature
must
prove
state
played
substantial
role
determining
specifics
economic
policy
ante
standard
neither
supported
prior
precedent
sound
matter
policy
dissent
immunity
antitrust
liability
doctrine
first
established
parker
brown
noted
majority
parker
relied
principles
federalism
concluding
sherman
act
apply
state
officials
administering
regulatory
program
enacted
state
legislature
concluded
state
action
exempt
antitrust
liability
sherman
act
congress
evidences
intent
restrain
state
action
official
action
directed
state
parker
decision
premised
assumption
congress
enacting
sherman
act
intend
compromise
ability
regulate
domestic
commerce
southern
motor
carriers
rate
conference
omitted
developed
present
analysis
immunity
private
actors
california
retail
liquor
dealers
assn
midcal
aluminum
held
midcal
prior
precedent
granted
state
action
immunity
antitrust
liability
conduct
private
actors
program
clearly
articulated
affirmatively
expressed
state
policy
policy
actively
supervised
state
internal
quotation
marks
citation
omitted
midcal
found
active
supervision
requirement
met
california
statute
issue
required
liquor
retailers
charge
certain
percentage
price
posted
area
wholesalers
state
direct
control
wine
prices
review
reasonableness
prices
set
wine
dealers
noted
defense
allow
authorize
nothing
private
instance
since
midcal
concluded
active
supervision
requirement
immunity
met
state
regulators
lacked
authority
state
law
review
reject
rates
action
taken
private
actors
facing
antitrust
liability
recent
formulation
active
supervision
requirement
announced
patrick
burget
concluded
satisfy
active
supervision
requirement
state
officials
must
exercise
power
review
particular
anticompetitive
acts
private
parties
disapprove
fail
accord
state
policy
today
therefore
never
occasion
determine
whether
state
regulatory
program
gave
state
officials
authority
power
review
regulate
prices
conduct
might
still
fail
meet
requirement
active
state
supervision
state
regulation
sufficiently
detailed
rigorous
addressing
question
appeals
case
used
following
analysis
state
program
place
staffed
funded
grants
state
officials
ample
power
duty
regulate
pursuant
declared
standards
state
policy
enforceable
state
courts
demonstrates
basic
level
activity
directed
towards
seeing
private
actors
carry
state
policy
simply
policy
need
established
quoting
new
england
motor
rate
bureau
ftc
believe
case
issue
particular
conduct
approved
state
agency
agency
manifested
approval
raising
objection
required
rate
filing
entity
subject
regulation
quite
consistent
statement
active
supervision
requirement
serves
mainly
evidentiary
function
one
way
ensuring
actor
engaging
challenged
conduct
pursuant
state
policy
hallie
eau
claire
insists
newly
required
active
supervision
increase
regulatory
flexibility
ante
private
actors
participate
joint
rate
filing
state
negative
option
regulatory
scheme
may
liable
treble
damages
prove
state
approved
specifics
filing
makes
highly
unlikely
private
actors
choose
participate
joint
filing
turn
lessens
regulatory
flexibility
noted
joint
rate
filings
improve
regulatory
process
ensuring
state
agency
fewer
filings
consider
allowing
resources
expended
filing
southern
motor
carriers
rate
conference
supra
view
advanced
appeals
sanction
areas
regulated
state
inconsistent
antitrust
laws
ante
state
must
establish
staff
fund
program
approve
jointly
set
rates
prices
order
activity
undertaken
private
individuals
program
immune
antitrust
laws
rejects
test
adopted
appeals
stating
end
inquiry
instead
party
seeking
immunity
must
show
state
officials
undertaken
necessary
steps
determine
specifics
scheme
ante
inquiry
necessarily
puts
federal
position
determining
efficacy
particular
state
regulatory
scheme
order
determine
whether
state
met
requisite
level
active
supervision
ante
maintains
proper
inquiry
determine
whether
state
met
normative
standard
regulatory
practices
ante
focus
actions
taken
state
regulators
way
state
regulates
necessarily
requires
judgment
whether
state
sufficiently
active
surely
normative
judgment
appeals
found
properly
view
issue
regulate
respondents
rates
vigor
petitioner
liked
supervision
respondents
conduct
active
enough
provide
immunity
antitrust
liability
appeals
concluded
federal
trade
commission
applied
incorrect
legal
standard
reviewed
facts
found
commission
light
correct
standard
reached
different
conclusion
constitute
rejection
commission
factual
findings
therefore
affirm
judgment
footnotes
ontinued
enforcement
national
antitrust
policy
grants
freedom
less
deciding
whether
subject
discrete
parts
economy
additional
regulations
controls
ante
however
parker
held
sherman
act
simply
apply
conduct
regulated
state
enforcement
national
antitrust
policy
embodied
antitrust
laws
may
grant
individuals
freedom
compete
free
market
system
implicate
freedom
deciding
whether
regulate
liquor
duffy
held
new
york
statute
failed
shelter
private
actors
antitrust
liability
state
legislation
required
retailers
charge
price
posted
wholesalers
new
york
statute
like
california
statute
issue
midcal
gave
power
state
agency
review
establish
reasonableness
price
schedules
posted
wholesalers
liquor
state
regulatory
programs
california
retail
liquor
dealers
assn
midcal
aluminum
patrick
burget
liquor
supra
fail
provide
immunity
lack
active
supervision
test
adopted
appeals
neither
examples
cited
majority
instances
state
regulation
intended
authorize
anticompetitive
conduct
application
less
detailed
active
supervision
test
change
result
patrick
burget
supra
concluded
immunity
state
authority
review
anticompetitive
action
undertaken
peer
review
committee
cantor
detroit
edison
unlikely
clear
articulation
requirement
current
jurisprudence
met
respect
market
light
bulbs
clear
formulation
whether
separate
test
applicable
negative
option
regulatory
schemes
whether
applies
generally
issues
immunity
doctrine
justice
justice
thomas
joins
dissenting
notwithstanding
assertions
contrary
diminished
regulatory
flexibility
creating
impossible
situation
subject
state
regulation
even
state
clearly
articulated
policy
authorizing
anticompetitive
behavior
federal
trade
commission
concedes
case
even
state
establishes
system
supervise
implementation
policy
majority
holds
federal
may
later
find
state
supervision
sufficiently
substantial
specifics
insulate
anticompetitive
behavior
antitrust
liability
ante
given
threat
treble
damages
regulated
entities
option
heeding
state
anticompetitive
policy
foolhardy
compelled
comply
less
fortunate
practical
effect
today
decision
likely
eliminate
negative
option
regulation
universe
schemes
available
state
seeks
regulate
without
exposing
certain
conduct
federal
antitrust
liability
dispute
issue
case
supervised
respondents
joint
ratemaking
rather
argues
potential
state
supervision
realized
fact
ante
evaluation
state
exercise
supervisory
powers
extremely
unfair
regulated
parties
liability
antitrust
laws
turn
enthusiastically
state
official
carried
statutory
duties
regulated
entity
control
regulator
likely
idea
degree
scrutiny
filings
may
receive
thus
party
engage
exactly
conduct
two
exactly
policy
allowing
anticompetitive
behavior
exactly
regulatory
structure
discover
afterward
actions
one
state
immune
antitrust
prosecution
actions
resulted
liability
moreover
even
regulated
entity
assure
state
undertake
actively
supervise
rate
filings
majority
offer
guidance
level
supervision
suffice
declares
state
must
pla
substantial
role
determining
specifics
economic
policy
ante
standard
ambiguous
also
runs
risk
counterproductive
reasonable
filed
rate
less
likely
state
play
role
simply
reviewing
rate
compliance
statutory
criteria
vague
retrospective
standard
combined
threat
treble
damages
standard
satisfied
makes
negative
option
regulation
unattractive
option
parties
regulate
finally
important
remember
antitrust
actions
brought
private
parties
well
government
prosecutors
resources
state
regulators
strained
enough
without
adding
extra
burden
asking
serve
witnesses
civil
litigation
respond
allegations
job
reasons
well
given
chief
justice
dissent