ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Corporate & Securities Law Blogs -> Truth on the Market

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Corporate & Securities Law

: Truth on the Market

“Leegin is a triumph of pragmatism”

ADVERTISEMENTS

That is what Judge Posner has to say about Leegin in his new book, How Judges Think.   I’m only a few chapters in, but so far, its a fascinating read.  I’ll probably blog some more about parts of the book later.  In particular, I’ve been thinking recently about how the complexity of substantive antitrust analysis affects judicial decision-making.  But for now I wanted to just post an excerpt from the book containing Posner’s description of Leegin (TOTM posts on Leegin are here):

The earlier case [ed: Dr. Miles]  had held that agreements by which a manufacturer places a floor under his distributors’ resale price are a per se violation of the Sherman Act, on the ground that they have the same effect as if the retailers had gotten together and decided to fix a minimum price at which to sell the good.  That was wrong as a matter of economics, because a manufacturer has no interesting in allowing his distributors to cartelize distribution, thus restricting his access to his customers.  If the manufacturer places a floor under his retailers’ prices, it is because the floor serves his interest in competing more effectively against other manufacturers, as by encouraging the retailers to provide presale services to customers for the manufacturer’s good.  So Dr. Miles was rightly overruled.  But the overruling, and its rightness, owed nothing to legalist thinking.  A venerable precedent was overruled because it was bad economics.  Leegin is a triumph of pragmatism.

Posner also describes Bell Atlantic v. Twombly (p. 53-54) as a pragmatic decision, noting that “nothing in the repertoire of legalism could have decided it, especially in favor of the position in the majority opinion” and concluding that “right or wrong, the decision in Bell Atlantic pragmatic rather than legalist.”  If Leegin is a “triumph of pragmatism,” is the continuing vitality of Jefferson Parish’s “per se” prohibition against tying a failure of pragmatism?  If my prediction is correct, whether pragmatic or otherwise, it won’t be too long before Jefferson Parish joins Dr. Miles.

Full post as published by Truth on the Market on April 13, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0158 secs (new cache)