Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society
Encyclopedia
Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society, 457 U.S. 332
(1982), is a case by the United States Supreme Court involving antitrust law. Maricopa County Medical Society, by agreement of their member doctors, established the maximum fees the doctors may claim in full payment for health services provided to policyholders of specified insurance plans
. Arizona
filed a complaint against MCMS in Federal District Court, alleging that they were engaged in an illegal price-fixing conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act
. In a 4–3 decision, the court held that the maximum fee agreements, as price-fixing agreements, are per se
unlawful under § 1 of the Sherman Act.
In Maricopa, the Burger court deviated from the antitrust methodology based on the writings of Chicago School scholars Robert Bork
and Richard Posner
. In doing so, the court made "antitrust analysis once again confused and haphazard".
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1982), is a case by the United States Supreme Court involving antitrust law. Maricopa County Medical Society, by agreement of their member doctors, established the maximum fees the doctors may claim in full payment for health services provided to policyholders of specified insurance plans
Health insurance in the United States
The term health insurance is commonly used in the United States to describe any program that helps pay for medical expenses, whether through privately purchased insurance, social insurance or a non-insurance social welfare program funded by the government...
. Arizona
Arizona
Arizona ; is a state located in the southwestern region of the United States. It is also part of the western United States and the mountain west. The capital and largest city is Phoenix...
filed a complaint against MCMS in Federal District Court, alleging that they were engaged in an illegal price-fixing conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act
Sherman Antitrust Act
The Sherman Antitrust Act requires the United States federal government to investigate and pursue trusts, companies, and organizations suspected of violating the Act. It was the first Federal statute to limit cartels and monopolies, and today still forms the basis for most antitrust litigation by...
. In a 4–3 decision, the court held that the maximum fee agreements, as price-fixing agreements, are per se
Illegal per se
The term illegal per se means that the act is inherently illegal. Thus, an act is illegal without extrinsic proof of any surrounding circumstances such as lack of scienter or other defenses...
unlawful under § 1 of the Sherman Act.
In Maricopa, the Burger court deviated from the antitrust methodology based on the writings of Chicago School scholars Robert Bork
Robert Bork
Robert Heron Bork is an American legal scholar who has advocated the judicial philosophy of originalism. Bork formerly served as Solicitor General, Acting Attorney General, and judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit...
and Richard Posner
Richard Posner
Richard Allen Posner is an American jurist, legal theorist, and economist who is currently a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago and a Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School...
. In doing so, the court made "antitrust analysis once again confused and haphazard".
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 457
- Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Seagram & Sons, Inc.Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Seagram & Sons, Inc.Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 340 U.S. 211 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that an agreement among competitors in interstate commerce to fix maximum resale prices of their products violates the Sherman Antitrust Act.-Background:The petitioner,...
- Albrecht v. Herald Co.Albrecht v. Herald Co.Albrecht v. Herald Co., 390 U.S. 145 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that wholesalers could not require franchisees and retailers of their products to sell items at a certain price; advertisements regarding sales therefore always included the language "Available at...