holding that “when a labor union and an employer enter into a plan or scheme of the type which results in the union closing its exemption from liability under the antitrust law, that plan or scheme is by definition an unreasonable restraint under the antitrust laws”
How later courts described this case
- holding that “when a labor union and an employer enter into a plan or scheme of the type which results in the union closing its exemption from liability under the antitrust law, that plan or scheme is by definition an unreasonable restraint under the antitrust laws”
- explaining that whether plaintiff's losses resulted from defendants' conduct or other market factors was for the jury to determine, as was witness credibility
- finding insufficient, without other evidence tending to establish prejudice, mere allegation that small company versus big company argument swayed jury
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PHILLIPS, Chief Judge
(concurring).
I do not interpret the opinion in this case to conflict with the opinion of Judge Edwards, in which I concurred, in Ramsey v. United Mine Workers of America, 416 F.2d 655 (6th Cir.), cert. granted, 397 U.S. 1006 , 90 S.Ct. 1238 , 25 L.Ed.2d 419 . I concur in the opinion prepared by Judge Brooks.