Group Life & Health Co v Royal Drug
" the original court ruling said that state regulation applied. The case was then decided on the basis of state regulation, noting that the federal Sherman Antitrust Act wouldn't apply. "
I thought that "Sherman Act applies (boycott, intimidation by insurer)" is one of the exception that federal government will regulate. So in the Group Life & Health Co v Royal Drug case, should Sherman Antitrust Act apply since it will be ruled by federal?
In both original and post appeals, Should Sherman Antitrust Act applies?
Thank you.
Comments
All these different rulings are difficult to untangle. Here is how I understand it:
The initial judgment, which was a summary judgment without trial, was:
But the appeal reversed the original summary judgment: