Commonwealth v. Alston, C.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a national bank’s agreements with banks in which it held 5% stock did not violate the Sherman Act because the 5% banks fell within the terms of the grandfather provision in the Bank Holding Company Act
• explaining that “the dissemination of price information is not itself a per se violation of the Sherman Act”
• Assuming that the government had established a prima facie violation of § 7, \(i)t was incumbent upon (the defendant) to show that the market-share statistics gave an inaccurate account of the acquisitions' probable effects on competition\
• holding, in a case where the trial court found no collusive price fixing, that “the dissemination of price information is not itself a per se violation of the Sherman Act”
• Assuming that the government had, established a prima facie violation of § 7, “[i]t was incumbent upon [the defendant] to show that the market-share statistics gave an inaccurate account of the acquisitions’ probable effects on competition”
• explaining that once the Government plainly made out a prima facie case establishing a violation of Section 7, it “was incumbent upon [the defendants] to show that the market-share statistics gave an inaccurate account of the acquisitions’ probable effects on competition.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).