Do bad antitrust decisions, as based on their facts, sometimes make good law? That is, do wrongly decided antitrust cases, when considered on their merits, sometimes have a lasting impact on the law even though the decision by most accounts should simply be overruled? If so, why do cases in such disrepute on their merits have such staying power, particularly when so much early antitrust precedent is simply ignored today? The Author examines two cases, United States v. Aluminum Co. of America (Alcoa) and Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, as examples of this phenomenon.
C. Paul Rogers,
Why Do Bad Antitrust Decisions Sometimes Make Good Law? The Alcoa and Brown Shoe Examples,
SMU L. Rev.