Legal Document

498 U.S. 46 111 S.Ct. 401 112 L.Ed.2d 349 Jay PALMER, et al.v.BRG OF GEORGIA, INC., al. No. 89-1667. Nov. 26, 1990. PER CURIAM. 1 In preparation for the 1985 Georgia Bar Examination, petitioners contracted to take a bar review course offered by respondent BRG of Georgia, Inc. (BRG). this litigation they contend that price BRG's was enhanced reason an unlawful agreement between and Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Legal Professional Publications (HBJ), Nation's largest provider materials lecture services. The central issue is whether 1980 respondents violated § Sherman Act.1 2 HBJ began offering on limited basis in 1976, direct, often intense, competition with during period from 1977 1979. were two main providers courses time period. early 1980, entered into gave exclusive license market HBJ's material use its trade name "Bar/Bri." parties agreed would not compete outside Georgia.2 Under agreement, received $100 per student enrolled 40% all revenues over $350. Immediately after increased $150 $400. 3 On petitioners' motion partial summary judgment as counts complaint respondents' judgment, District Court held lawful. United States Appeals Eleventh Circuit, one judge dissenting, se horizontal fixing required explicit prices be charged or party have right consulted about other's prices. also prove violation under geographic allocation theory, had show subdivided some relevant which previously competed. 874 F.2d 1417 (1989).3 denied petition rehearing en banc been supported States. 893 293 (1990).4 4 v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 150, 60 811, 84 L.Ed. 1129 (1940), we among competitors engage program buying surplus gasoline spot order prevent falling sharply unlawful, even though there no direct actual maintained. We explained "[u]nder Act combination formed purpose effect raising, depressing, fixing, pegging, stabilizing commodity interstate foreign commerce illegal se." Id., at 223, S.Ct., 844. See Catalano, Target Sales, Inc., 446 643, 100 1925, 64 580 (1980) (per curiam ); National Society Engineers States, 435 679, 98 1355, 55 637 (1978). 5 revenue-sharing formula HBJ, coupled increase took place immediately cease competing each other indicates "formed raising" course. It was, therefore, plainly incorrect enter favor.5 Moreover, it equally clear erred when assumed markets submarkets unless competed divided them. 6 Topco Associates, 405 596, 92 1126, 31 515 (1972), agreements allocate territories minimize are illegal: 7 "One classic examples same level structure competition. . This has reiterated again '[h]orizontal territorial limitations naked restraints except stifling competition.' Such violations Act." 608, 1133-34 (citations omitted). 8 defendants never market, but simply markets. Here, market; their while remainder Each territories. anticompetitive regardless split within both do business merely reserve another other.6 Thus, face. 9 writ certiorari granted, reversed, case remanded further proceedings consistent opinion.7 10 so ordered. 11 Justice SOUTER part consideration decision case. 12 MARSHALL, dissenting. 13 Although I agree information before us appears indicate below, continue believe dispositions deprive litigants fair opportunity heard merits significantly risk erroneous decision. Smith Ohio, 494 541, 544, 110 1288, ----, 108 464 (1990) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting); Pennsylvania Bruder, 488 9, 11-12, 109 205, 207, 102 172 (1988) Rhodes Stewart, 1, 4-5, 202, 203-04, Buchanan Stanships, 485 265, 269-270, 1130, 1132, 99 289 Commissioner McCoy, 484 3, 7-8, 217, 219-20, (1987) dissenting). therefore dissent Court's today reverse summarily below. Section Act, 26 Stat. 209, amended set forth 15 U.S.C. provides part: "Every contract, form trust otherwise, conspiracy, restraint several nations, declared illegal." reach claims alleged nine-count complaint, including 2. contained provisions, called "Covenant Not Compete" "Other Ventures." former "directly indirectly own, manage, operate, join, invest, control, participate connected officer, employee, partner, director, independent contractor otherwise any operating participating candidates State Examination." Plaintiffs' Motion Partial Summary Judgment, Attachment E, p. 10. latter against currently operated Georgia. 15. dissent, Judge Clark his view capable engaging because then joined forces. He believed analysis flawed failed recognize could price-fixing without reference allocation, rather than subdivision, constitute antitrust violation. amicus curiae, urged court adopt views dissent. Anderson Liberty Lobby, 477 242, 255, 106 2505, 2513, 91 202 (1986) ("The evidence nonmovant believed, justifiable inferences drawn favor"). Arizona Maricopa County Medical Society, 457 332, 344, n. 15, 2466, 2473, 73 48 (1982) ("division markets" offense). 1982, connection settlement lawsuit, made certain changes arrangement. Because found did violate address 1982 modified constituted withdrawal from, abandonment of, conspiracy. Kissel, 218 601, 124, 54 1168 (1910), conspiracies may beyond original conspiratorial until either conspiracy's objectives abandoned succeed. 608-609, 126. unsettled factual manifest continued spite modifications.

Classification Label: 7