In Re the Bell Children's Trust v. the State of Texas

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 “quick look” was not sufficient to justify the conclusion that an advertising restriction adopted by a trade association violated the antitrust laws
• holding that full rule of reason analysis was required where challenged restraint “might plausibly be thought to have a net procompetitive effect, or possibly no effect at all on competition”
• explaining that the quick-look approach may be applicable if rule-of-reason analyses in case after case reach identical conclusions
• using three-step rule of reason when reviewing restrictions designed to address deceptive advertising in market prone to information gaps
• noting that the per se rule applies “only after courts have considerable experience with the type of restraint at issue” and have “confidence it would be invalidated in all or almost all instances under the rule of reason” (citations omitted)
• noting to require a “more extended examination” does not always translate to a call for “plenary market examination”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).