The Federal Trade Commission: The Development of the Law which led to its Establishment

1915 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-67
Author(s):  
James A. Fayne
Keyword(s):  
Federal Trade Commission ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Department Of Justice ◽  
Private Business ◽  
Administrative Work ◽  
Regulate Competition ◽  
Corporation Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
Circuit Courts

It was Munn vs. Illinois that first interpreted the constitutional provision empowering Congress to regulate commerce in such a way as to charge private business with a public interest. Since that epochal finding our courts have made comparatively swift progress, reaching ultimately (through the Standard Oil and tobacco decisions) a federal trade commission to regulate competition in trade and to restrain illegal combinations. All of this has been done during the professional life of many lawyers of today, for Munn vs. Illinois was decided in 1876.Writers upon the trend of legislation and of court decisions had clearly predicted this last development of corporation law. The incident of climax importance however, was the remanding of the oil and tobacco cases to the circuit courts where the decrees of dissolution were to be worked out in conjunction with the department of justice. This was administrative work, and a department of the executive branch of the government should do it. Hence the creation of the trade commission, empowered to investigate the carrying out of the decrees of the supreme court and to prepare the form of decree in certain cases referred to it by the circuit courts.

Federal Organization of Legal Functions

1939 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 973-1000
Author(s):  
Carl Brent Swisher
Keyword(s):  
Executive Branch ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Limited Extent ◽  
Department Of Justice ◽  
Centralized Management ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Organization ◽  
The Government ◽  
The One ◽  
Work Done

Varied tasks throughout the vast field of activities of the executive branch of the federal government can be performed only by persons with training in one of more branches of law. The tasks run all the way from the administration of locally established rules and regulations of the several government agencies to the argument of fundamentally important constitutional questions before the Supreme Court. Down through the years of American history there has been conflict of opinion as to the proper mode of organizing the legal work of the government. It is contended, on the one hand, that functions of a highly specialized and highly professionalized character such as those of law ought, in the interest of symmetry and efficiency, to be integrated under centralized management. To a limited extent, such integration has been brought about in the Department of Justice. On the other hand, it is contended that the work of lawyers merely aids in the performance of more fundamental classifications of work done by the government, and that organization should be in terms of such topics as finance, foreign affairs, commerce, agriculture, and labor, with legal tasks grouped in subordinate categories and subject to control only by the respective heads of the major organizations. In line with this contention, all major departments and most other agencies have staffs of lawyers not directly connected with the Department of Justice.

scholarly journals Night Landings on an Aircraft Carrier: Hospital Mergers and Antitrust Law

1997 ◽  
Vol 23 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 191-220
Author(s):  
Thomas L. Greaney
Keyword(s):  
Federal Trade Commission ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
Department Of Justice ◽  
Aircraft Carrier ◽  
Hospital Mergers ◽  
The Past ◽  
Consent Decrees ◽  
The Government ◽  
Administrative Proceedings

Justice Stewart’s 1966 dictum about the inevitability of government success in challenging mergers under Section 7 of the Clayton Act held true for another fifteen years or so. In the early 1980s, however, federal enforcement agencies, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), began to find the federal courts less hospitable to antitrust merger cases as more sophisticated economic inquiries and changing proof burdens complicated the task of identifying anticompetitive mergers. Indeed, since the early 1980s, the government has lost more litigated merger cases than it has won and has come under criticism from some quarters for becoming gun shy and not adequately policing the wave of consolidations that have occurred over the past decade.Hospital mergers, however, are a different story. Until two years ago, the government rode a streak of important victories in federal courts and FTC administrative proceedings, and had obtained consent decrees from scores of hospitals that had announced plans to merge.

scholarly journals Judicial Response to the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines

2021 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-79
Author(s):  
Carl Shapiro ◽  
Howard Shelanski
Keyword(s):  
Federal Trade Commission ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Market Concentration ◽  
Horizontal Merger ◽  
Average Increase ◽  
Department Of Justice ◽  
Merger Guidelines ◽  
Direct Competition ◽  
The Government ◽  
The U.S

AbstractWe study how the courts have responded to the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. Looking at decided cases, we find that both the government and merging parties rely on the 2010 Guidelines in presenting their cases, each side respectively arguing that it should win if the court properly follows them . The 2010 Guidelines had the strongest effect on the case law in the area of unilateral effects, where a number of courts have embraced them in ways that clearly depart from earlier decisions. The case law now exhibits much greater receptivity to a government showing that the merger will lead to higher prices simply due to the loss of direct competition between the two merging firms. The courts also have followed the 2010 Guidelines by more willingly defining markets around targeted customers. We do not detect any effect on decided cases of the higher concentration thresholds found in the 2010 Guidelines. Both the average pre-merger level of market concentration and the average increase in market concentration alleged by the government in litigated cases to date declined after 2010 .

Developments in Constitutional Law: Selected Topics

1990 ◽  
Vol 24 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 368-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shimon Shetreet
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Prime Minister ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Protection ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Relative Status ◽  
The Government ◽  
State Of Israel

The first forty years of the State of Israel witnessed significant changes in the relative status of the various branches of government. The executive was quite powerful during the early decades of the State's existence, thanks to the strong leadership of the first Prime Minister and founding father, David Ben Gurion. Accordingly, the status of the Supreme Court during that period was weak in comparison to the Executive Branch, i.e. the Government. Subsequently, the government's position weakened as the judiciary gained strength. This phenomenon was expressed in the increasing recourse to the courts to consider issues that had previously been the exclusive domain of the government. The judiciary's broader role and enhanced position vis-à-vis the executive did not bring about commensurate constitutional protection of the judicial system. In fact, we may observe a certain decline in this respect that hopefully, will be rectified when the Constitution of the State of Israel is completed with the enactment of Basic Laws on Human and Civil Rights coupled with legislation that will provide the requisite constitutional protection.

scholarly journals KEDUDUKAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI SEBAGAI LEMBAGA NEGARA BERDASARKAN UNDANG-UNDANG DASAR 1945

Solusi ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 94-105
Author(s):  
Johansyah Johansyah
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Vice President ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Election Results ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government

The Constitutional Court is the executive branch of the judiciary that is independent and separate from other branches of power, namely the government (executive) and legislative institutions. The Constitutional Court as a first and last level judiciary does not have an organizational structure as large as the Supreme Court which is the peak of a judicial system whose structure is vertically and horizontally covers five judicial environments, namely the general court environment, the state administrative court environment, the religious court environment, and military court environment. As an organ of judicial power that operates the judicial function, the Constitutional Court is independent, both structurally and functionally. The functions and authorities of the Constitutional Court based on Law No. 24 of 2003, namely the Constitutional Court has the authority to hear: Test the laws against the Republic of Indonesia 1945 Constitution; Decide on authority disputes between state institutions whose authority is granted by the Republic of Indonesia 1945 Constitution; Decide the dissolution of political parties; Decide disputes about election results; Give a verdict on the opinion of the House of Representatives that the President and / or Vice-President are suspected of violating the law in the form of treason, corruption, bribery, other serious crimes, or despicable acts, or no longer fulfill the conditions as President and or Vice President, as intended in the Republic of Indonesia 1945 Constitution.

Criminal Law in Internal Conflict of Laws in Malaŵi

1985 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matembo Nzunda
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Internal Conflict ◽  
Appellate Court ◽  
Criminal Jurisdiction ◽  
Appeal Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
Appeal Courts ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Malaŵi has two sets of courts which run completely parallel to each other. One set forms the Judicial Branch of the Government and consists of magistrates’ courts (which have original civil and criminal jurisdiction only), the High Court (which has unlimited original and appellate civil and criminal jurisdiction) and the Supreme Court of Appeal (which has original criminal jurisdiction for contempt of court but otherwise has appellate civil and criminal jurisdiction). The Supreme Court of Appeal is a final appellate court in this set of courts. These courts are here called Received Courts because they apply the received (English) common law as the basic law.The other set of courts is a section of the Ministry of Justice (which is part of the Executive Branch of the Government). The set consists of Traditional Courts of Grades A and B, the Traditional Appeal Courts (which hear and determine appeals from Traditional Courts of Grades A and B), District Traditional Courts, Regional Traditional Courts and the National Traditional Appeal Court (which hears and determines appeals from Traditional Appeal Courts, District Traditional Courts and Regional Traditional Courts). The civil and criminal jurisdiction of Traditional Courts is set out in the warrant establishing the Court and is supplemented from time to time by published ministerial orders under the authority of the Traditional Courts Act (the 1962 Act). The National Traditional Appeal Court is a final appellate court in this set of courts.

scholarly journals Evaluating the Impact of the Indian Supreme Court Judgment on Sex-Selective Abortion

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sital Kalantry
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Selective Abortion ◽  
Public Interest Litigation ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Sex Selective Abortion ◽  
The Government ◽  
Indian Supreme Court ◽  
The Impact

Lawyers bring public interest litigation cases (“PIL”) to the Indian Supreme Court seeking many different types of remedies, including to prevent the construction of power plants that may damage the environment or to prevent violations of rights of a group of people. The Indian Supreme Court (the “Supreme Court” or “Court”) sometimes responds by creating guidelines like what the executive branch might do. But in many PIL cases, litigants are not asking for the creating of new rules, but instead they are simply asking the Supreme Court to encourage the government to amend, implement, and enforce laws that already exist.

Russia in 2000-2004: Heading towards State Capitalism?

2004 ◽  
pp. 42-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Radygin
Keyword(s):  
The State ◽  
Private Business ◽  
Private Companies ◽  
State Capitalism ◽  
The Government

The paper deals with one of the characteristic trends of the 2000s, that is, the government's property expansion. It is accompanied by attempts to consolidate economic structures controlled by the state and state-owned stock packages and unitary enterprises under the aegis of holdings. Besides the government practices selective severe enforcement actions against a number of the largest private companies, strengthens its control over companies with mixed capital and establishes certain informal procedures of relationships between private business and the state. The author examines the YUKOS case and the business community's actual capacity to protect its interests. One can argue that in all likelihood the trend to the 'state capitalism' in its specific Russian variant has become clearer over 2003-2004.

ANALISIS YURIDIS NORMATIF PUTUSAN PERKARA MAHKAMAH AGUNG KONSTITUSI RI No. 004/PUU-II/2004

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 7
Author(s):  
Doni Budiono
Keyword(s):  
The Body ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Military Justice ◽  
State Administration ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Directorate General ◽  
The Government ◽  
Government Rules ◽  
The Right ◽  
Tax Court

The  authority  of justice in Indonesia  is executed by  the Supreme Courts and  the  justice  boards/body under the Supreme Courts, including  the general  justice, religious affairs justice, military justice,  state administration  justice,  and  the Constitution Court. According to  certainty in  the Act of  Tax Court, Article1, clause  (5),  tax  dispute   refers to the legal dispute arising in the  taxation  affairs between the  tax payer or the  body  responsible for the  tax with   the government   executives  ( Directorate General of Tax) as the consequence of   the issue of  the decree for the  appeal  to the Tax  Court in accordance with the  tax Act, including the  charge  against the  execution of collection   in accordance with the  Act of Tax Collection by force. The  formation of Tax Court is  designed by  the Executives, in this case, the  Department of Finance, specifically  the Directorate   General  of Tax  which has the right to issue  law  more technical about  tax accord to Article 14,  letter A,  President Decree  no. 44  year 1974,  concerning the  basic  organization of the Department.  Based on  it,  it  is clear that  in addition to execute the government  rules and policy,  this body  has to execute judicial   rules and policy. This is against the  principles of  Judicative  Power/Authority in Indonesia,  which   clearly states that this body  should be under the Supreme Court.   Therefore. It is suggested that   the Act  No UU no.14 Year 2012 concerning  Tax Court   be revised  in accordance with the system of  Power Division  of Justice  as  stated in 45 Constitutions.

DEKADENSI PEMILIHAN HAKIM AGUNG OLEH DPR RI

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-104
Author(s):  
Rustam Magun Pikahulan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Institutional Status ◽  
The Government

Abstract: The Plato's conception of the rule of law states that good governance is based on good law. The organization also spreads to the world of Supreme Court justices, the election caused a decadence to the institutional status of the House of Representatives as a people's representative in the government whose implementation was not in line with the decision of the Constitutional Court. Based on the decision of the Constitutional Court No.27/PUU-XI/2013 explains that the House of Representatives no longer has the authority to conduct due diligence and suitability (elect) to prospective Supreme Judges proposed by the Judicial Commission. The House of Representatives can only approve or disapprove candidates for Supreme Court Justices that have been submitted by the Judicial Commission. In addition, the proportion of proposed Supreme Court Justices from the judicial commission to the House of Representatives (DPR) has changed, whereas previously the Judicial Commission had to propose 3 (three) of each vacancy for the Justices, now it is only one of each vacant for Supreme Court Judges. by the Supreme Court. The House of Representatives no longer has the authority to conduct due diligence and suitability (elect) to prospective Supreme Judges proposed by the Judicial Commission. The House of Representatives can only "approve" or "disagree" the Supreme Judge candidates nominated by the Judicial Commission.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document