Source: http://supreme.nolo.com/us/414/113/case.html
Timestamp: 2019-09-23 15:31:24
Document Index: 196089788

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 9', '§ 13', '§ 5', '§ 7']

CHICAGO MERCANTILE EXCHANGE V. DEAKTOR, 414 U. S. 113 - Volume 414 - 1973 - Full Text - US Supreme Court Center - USSC Cases - Nolo
US Supreme Court Center > Volume 414 > CHICAGO MERCANTILE EXCHANGE V. DEAKTOR, 414 U. S. 113 (1973) > Full Text
CHICAGO MERCANTILE EXCHANGE V. DEAKTOR, 414 U. S. 113 (1973)
No. 73-241
Decided December 3, 1973
The petitioner, Chicago Mercantile Exchange, was sued in two separate actions in the District Court. In one, the Phillips suit, it was alleged that the Exchange had forced sales of futures contracts in March, 1970, fresh eggs at artificially depressed market prices, and had thereby monopolized and restrained commerce in violation of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, and had violated § 9(b) of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), as amended, 82 Stat. 33, 7 U.S.C. § 13(b), by manipulating prices of a commodity for future delivery on a contract market. The Exchange was also accused of violating § 5a of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. § 7a(8), for failure to enforce one of its own rules. In the second suit, the Deaktor case, the Exchange was charged with violating the CEA and its own rules as a designated contract market because it had failed
Page 414 U. S. 114
to exercise due care to halt the manipulative conduct of certain of its members who allegedly had cornered the July, 1970, market in frozen pork bellies futures contracts.
Ricci v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange, 409 U. S. 289 (1973), held that an antitrust action against the Exchange should have been stayed to afford the Commodity Exchange Commission an opportunity to determine if the challenged conduct of the Exchange was in compliance with the statute and with Exchange rules. Because administrative adjudication of alleged violations of the CEA and the rules lay at the heart of the task assigned the Commission by Congress, we recognized that
Page 414 U. S. 115
the court, although retaining final authority to interpret the CEA and its relationship to the antitrust laws, should avail itself of the abilities of the Commission to unravel the intricate and technical facts of the commodity industry and to arrive at some judgment as to whether the Exchange had conducted itself in compliance with the law. An adjudication by the Commission that the actions of the Exchange were authorized or required by the CEA would not necessarily dispose of the question of immunity from antitrust liability. We nevertheless thought the considered view of the Commission would be of sufficient aid to the court that the action should not go forward without making reasonable efforts to invoke the jurisdiction of the Commission. Id. at 409 U. S. 305-306. As we did in Ricci,
Page 414 U. S. 116
Powered by Justia US Supreme Court Center: CHICAGO MERCANTILE EXCHANGE V. DEAKTOR, 414 U. S. 113 (1973)