Stephen D. Susman of Dallas, Texas, writes from the view of the private plaintiff. He decries the "damage . . . done to the antitrust laws in the name of efficiency and world competition." He describes how, even through the years of federal nonenforcement, the private plaintiff has been increasingly handicapped as antitrust litigant and is now frequently thrown out of court when the court (not the jury) determines that the weight of evidence is against it, or when the court accepts without factual inquiry defendants' Chicago School theory that this plaintiff could not have suffered "antitrust injury."
The final essay is by professor and former dean Robert Pitofsky of Georgetown Law Center, who gives a crisp retrospective, shows how the Supreme Court has generally rejected Chicago extremism, and stakes out ground for antitrust's future.
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Book title: Revitalizing Antitrust in Its Second Century:Essays on Legal, Economic, and Political Policy. Contributors: Harry First - Editor, Eleanor M. Fox - Editor, Robert Pitofsky - Editor. Publisher: Quorum Books. Place of publication: New York. Publication year: 1991. Page number: 450.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.