# Reply Brief — Haddad v. Crosby Corp. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_1648%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Reply Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1978 - **Citation:** 439 U.S. 929 ## Text Es bis AEs OO Ce REE ths IES F v> Le eh Bet tbe IN THE Supreme Court of the Anited States OCTOBER TERM 1978 No. 78-375 GENEVIEVE M. HaApDDapD, Petitioner, VS. THE CROSBY CORPORATION, ET AL., Respondents. REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONER PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 24(4) Genevieve M. Haddad hereby respectfully submits her reply brief pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 24(4) as follows: The respondents assert that: “This Case Does Not Present a Question Suitable for the Granting of a Writ of 2 Certiorari.”” We demur, most emphatically. With the line of cases of which United States v. National Association of Securities Dealers, 422 U.S. 694 (1975) and Continential T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U.S. 36 (1977) are characteristic, this Court has begun a careful, case-by-case re-examination of the applicability of the per se doctrine to vertical inter-relationships and, more fundamentally, the competitive impact of various vertical arrangements there- tofore wholly, and uncritically, beyond the pale. Here, the lower courts have taken some Delphic references to horizontal conduct in this Court’s N.A.S.D. opinion and escalated them to carte[|] blanche for industry horizontal anti-competitive conduct (per se or no)1 despite a clear Congressional mandate to the con- trary,2 when there is arguable regulatory agency jurisdic- tion. Petitioner notes with some surprise respondents’ apparent reversal in contention; now that the horizontal restraints of the secondary markets, alleged in Count I of 1As this Court has noted in prior opinions, where courts of appeal have misapplied, misconstrued or misconcieved a prior Su- preme Court opinion, it is appropriate to grant the petition for writ of certiorari. See Schlude v. Commissioner, 372 U.S. 128 (1963); Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U.S. 399 (1961). Furthermore, where, as here, the decision of the court of appeals is based upon a point expressly reserved in a prior Supreme Court opinion or upon a point in need of clarification, it is equally appropriate to grant the petition. See, e.g., United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976); S.E.C., v. United Benefit Life Ins. Co., 387 U.S. 202 (1967); Federal Trade Commission v. Travelers Health Association, 362 US. 293 (1960); Ickes v. Virginia-Colorado Development Corp., 295 US. 639 (1935). 2 See 15 U.S.C. §780-3(b)(8). ——_— «= 3 the Government Complaint in N.A.S.D., were not effec- tively withdrawn? by the government. At the oral argu- ment before this Court in N.A.S.D., respondents’ liaison counsel argued forcefully that the Government’s Count I claim was nothing more than a non-case.4 The distinction this Court has attempted to make between permissible intra-product conduct which might have a net pro-competitive impact and traditional com- . binations, contracts, and conspiracies between competitors has plainly not been observed. This case is a suitable vehicle to that useful end. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, as, well as those already presented in our Petition for Writ of Certior- ari, Haddad respectfully requests this Court to grant her petition for a writ of certiorari. Respectfully submitted, Attorneys for the Petitioner EUGENE J. METZGER CaRL W. SCHWARZ METZGER, SHADYAC & SCHWARZ One Farragut Square South Washington, D.C. 20006 3 See Record at 50, United States y. National Association of Securities Dealers, 422 U.S. 694 (1975) [hereinafter ““Record’’] where respondents’ liaison counsel, Mr. Loevinger, stated that: they [the Government] have now retreated from that allega- tion [horizontal restraints by the brokers] and thereby substantially withdrawn their count one charges. He noted further that: [t]here is a formal allegation to this effect [suppression of a secondary market through brokers], but in fact it has been largely abandoned. Record at 49-50 . 4 Record at 50. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_1648%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.