Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society

1982 United States Supreme Court case

1982 United States Supreme Court case

Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued November 4, 1981
Decided June 18, 1982
Full case name| Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society
Citations| 457 U.S. 332 (more)

102 S. Ct. 2466; 73 L. Ed. 2d 48

Case history
Prior| 643 F.2d 553 (9th Cir. 1980)
Holding
The maximum fee agreements, as price-fixing agreements, are per se unlawful under § 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Court membership

Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr. · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
Majority| Stevens, joined by Brennan, White, Marshall
Dissent| Powell, joined by Burger, Rehnquist
Blackmun, O'Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890

Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society, 457 U.S. 332 (1982), was a U.S. Supreme Court case involving antitrust law. A society of doctors in Maricopa County, Arizona, established maximum fees that their members could claim for seeing patients who were covered by certain health insurance plans. Arizona charged them with violations of state antitrust law regarding price fixing. The society tried to rebut the state's charges by claiming that the maximum-fee arrangement was necessary to allow doctors to see these patients, and therefore generated economic benefits.

On appeal, the Supreme Court rejected this defense, saying that price fixing was not truly necessary here: the society could have used insurance to pool their risk. The society's efficiency justification was either a pretext, or else could have been done through less restrictive means. The Court held that their justifications failed as a matter of fact.

## Facts

[edit]

Maricopa County Medical Society, by agreement of their member doctors, established the maximum fees the doctors may claim in full payment for health services provided to policyholders of specified insurance plans. Arizona filed a complaint against MCMS in Federal District Court, alleging that they were engaged in an illegal price-fixing conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

## Judgment

[edit]

In a 4–3 decision, the court held that the maximum fee agreements, as price-fixing agreements, are per se unlawful under § 1 of the Sherman Act.

## Significance

[edit]

The ruling stipulates not just that maximum price fixing among competitors is unlawful, but that it is unlawful per se. This precludes any significant inquiry into potential procompetitive justifications for such an arrangement. According to one author, the result of the decision was to make "antitrust analysis once again confused and haphazard."[1]

## See also

[edit]

* v
* t
* e

Sources on rule of reason

US v. Trans-Missouri Freight Asn, 166 U.S. 290 (1897)

US v. Joint Traffic Association, 171 U.S. 505 (1898)

Addyston Pipe and Steel Co. v. US, 175 U.S. 211 (1899)

Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. US, 221 U.S. 1 (1911)

Chicago Board of Trade v. US, 246 U.S. 231 (1918)

United States v. Topco Assocs., Inc., 405 U.S. 596 (1972)

National Soc. of Prof. Engineers v. US, 435 U.S. 679 (1978)

Broadcast Music v. Columbia Broadcast, 441 U.S. 1 (1979)

Broadcast Music, Inc. v. CBS, Inc., 441 U.S. 1 (1979)

Arizona v. Maricopa County Med Soc, 457 U.S. 332 (1982)

NCAA v. University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984)

FTC v. Indiana Fed'n of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447 (1986)

Palmer v. BRG of Georgia, Inc., 498 U.S. 46 (1990)

California Dental Assn. v. FTC, 526 U.S. 756 (1999)

See US antitrust law and rule of reason

* US antitrust law
* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 457
* Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Seagram & Sons, Inc.
* Albrecht v. Herald Co.

## Notes

[edit]

1. ^ Gerhart, Peter M. (1982), "The Supreme Court and Antitrust Analysis: The (Near) Triumph of the Chicago School", The Supreme Court Review, 1982: 319–349, doi:10.1086/scr.1982.3109560, JSTOR 3109560, S2CID 147003503.

## References

[edit]

* Leffler, Keith B. (1983), "Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society: Maximum-Price Agreements in Markets with Insured Buyers", Supreme Court Economic Review, 2: 187–211, doi:10.1086/scer.2.1147125, S2CID 155736979.
* Cohen, Harry Philip (1981), "IPAs and Per Se Rules: Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society", Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 9 (5): 8–12, doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.1981.tb00286.x, S2CID 71189740.

## External links

[edit]

* Text of Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society, 457 U.S. 332 (1982) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)

* v
* t
* e

United States antitrust law

* History
* Interstate Commerce Commission (1887–1996)
* Bureau of Corporations (1903–1915)
* Pujo Committee (1912–1913)
* Federal Trade Commission (1914–)
* U.S. Justice Department Antitrust Division (1919–)
* U.S. Senate Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee
* U.S. House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee

Statutes and
regulations|

* Interstate Commerce Act of 1887
* Sherman Antitrust Act (1890)
* Elkins Act (1903)
* Expediting Act (1903)
* Publicity In Taking Evidence Act (1913)
* Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914
* Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914
* Webb–Pomerene Act (1918)
* Willis Graham Act (1921)
* Capper–Volstead Act (1922)
* Robinson–Patman Act (1936)
* Wheeler–Lea Act (1938)
* McCarran–Ferguson Act (1945)
* Celler–Kefauver Act (1950)
* Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961
* Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970
* Tunney Act (1974)
* Hart–Scott–Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act (1976)
* National Cooperative Research and Production Act (1993)
* Executive Order 14036 (2021)

Supreme Court
case law|

| Sherman Antitrust Act
Section 1 case law|

* United States v. American Tobacco Co. (1911)
* United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. (1940)
* International Salt Co. v. United States (1947)
* United States v. Line Material Co. (1948)
* Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Seagram & Sons, Inc. (1951)
* United States v. New Wrinkle, Inc. (1952)
* United States v. Loew's Inc. (1962)
* United States v. Wise (1962)
* Silver v. New York Stock Exchange (1963)
* United States v. Singer Mfg. Co. (1963)
* Albrecht v. Herald Co. (1968)
* United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. (1973)
* Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar (1975)
* Continental Television, Inc. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. (1977)
* Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois (1977)
* Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society (1982)
* Rice v. Norman Williams Co. (1982)
* Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp. (1984)
* Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde (1984)
* NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma (1984)
* Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. (1986)
* State Oil Co. v. Khan (1997)
* Texaco Inc. v. Dagher (2006)
* Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (2007)
* Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. (2007)
* American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League (2010)
* Ohio v. American Express Co. (2018)
* National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston (2021)

|

Sherman Antitrust Act
Section 2 case law|

* Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States (1911)
* Lorain Journal Co. v. United States (1951)
* Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp. (1965)
* Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States (1973)
* Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. (1985)
* Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan (1993)
* Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP (2004)
* Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co. (2007)
* Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc.  (2009)

Other Sherman
Antitrust Act cases|

* United States v. E. C. Knight Co. (1895)
* United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association (1897)
* Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States (1899)
* Northern Securities Co. v. United States (1904)
* Swift & Co. v. United States (1905)
* Loewe v. Lawlor (1908)
* Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. (1911)
* United States v. Terminal Railroad Association (1912)
* Chicago Board of Trade v. United States (1918)
* United States v. Colgate & Co. (1919)
* Federal Baseball Club v. National League (1922)
* United States v. General Electric Co. (1926)
* Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States (1939)
* Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States (1940)
* Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC (1941)
* United States v. Masonite Corp. (1942)
* United States v. Univis Lens Co. (1942)
* Parker v. Brown (1943)
* United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n (1944)
* Associated Press v. United States (1945)
* Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States (1945)
* Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. (1946)
* United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. (1948)
* United States v. United States Gypsum Co. (1948–1950)
* Besser Manufacturing Co. v. United States (1951)
* Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States (1953)
* Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc. (1953)
* United States v. International Boxing Club of New York, Inc. (1955)
* Radovich v. National Football League (1957)
* Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc. (1959)
* United States v. Parke, Davis & Co. (1960)
* Haywood v. National Basketball Association (1971)
* Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (1971)
* Flood v. Kuhn (1972)
* Broadcast Music, Inc. v. CBS Inc. (1979)
* California Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc. (1980)
* American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Inc. v. Hydrolevel Corp. (1982)
* Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. (1985)
* Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc. (1992)
* Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California (1993)
* Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. (2006)
* North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC (2015)

Interstate Commerce Act
case law|

* United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association (1897)
* United States v. ICC (1970)

Clayton Antitrust Act
case law|

* Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering (1921)
* Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC (1941)
* Mercoid cases (1944)
* Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States (1945)
* Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. (1946)
* United States v. National City Lines Inc. (1948)
* Standard Oil Co. v. United States (1949)
* Tampa Electric Co. v. Nashville Coal Co.  (1961)
* Silver v. New York Stock Exchange (1963)
* United States v. Philadelphia National Bank (1963)
* United States v. Continental Can Co. (1964)
* FTC v. Consolidated Foods Corp. (1965)
* Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp. (1965)
* FTC v. Dean Foods Co. (1966)
* Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (1971)
* Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of California (1972)
* Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois (1977)
* Pfizer Inc. v. Government of India (1978)
* Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (1993)
* Apple Inc. v. Pepper (2019)

FTC Act case law|

* Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC (1941)
* FTC v. Motion Picture Advertising Service Co. (1953)
* FTC v. Sperry & Hutchinson Trading Stamp Co. (1972)
* FTC v. Actavis, Inc. (2013)

Robinson–Patman Act
case law|

* Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. (1986)
* Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (1993)

Other cases|

* Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. (1908)
* Black & White Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co. (1928)
* Watson v. Buck (1941)
* National Broadcasting Co. v. United States (1943)
* Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co. (1980)
* District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman (1983)
* Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Billing (2007)
* Comcast Corp. v. Behrend (2013)
* Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceuticals (2018)

Other federal
case law|

* United States v. Motion Picture Patents Co. (1915)
* United States v. Consolidated Music Corporation (1922)
* United States v. Vehicular Parking Ltd. (1944)
* United States v. Alcoa (1945)
* Gamco, Inc. v. Providence Fruit & Produce Building, Inc. (1952)
* United States v. Morgan (1953)
* United States v. Krasnov (1956)
* United States v. Huck Mfg. Co. (1965)
* Robertson v. National Basketball Ass'n (1977)
* SmithKline Corp. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1978)
* United States v. Westinghouse Electric Co. (1981)
* United States v. AT&T (1982)
* Mid-South Grizzlies v. National Football League (1983)
* United States v. Syufy Enterprises (1990)
* Wilk v. American Medical Association (1990)
* A.D. Bedell Wholesale Co., Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc. (2001)
* United States v. Microsoft Corp. (2001)
* Fraser v. Major League Soccer (2002)
* LePage's, Inc. v. 3M (2003)
* Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (2005)
* United States v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc. (2005)
* Tritent International Corp. v. Kentucky (2006)
* Wallace v. International Business Machines Corp. (2006)
* De Beers antitrust litigation (2008)
* Redbox Automated Retail LLC v. Universal City Studios LLLP (2009)
* Princo Corp. v. ITC (2010)
* United States v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al. (2011)
* United States v. Apple Inc. (2013)
* O'Bannon v. NCAA (2015)
* United States v. AT&T (2015)
* FTC v. Qualcomm (2020)
* New York v. Deutsche Telekom (2020)
* Epic Games v. Apple (2021)
* Burnett v. National Association of Realtors (2023)
* Epic Games v. Google (2023)
* FTC v. Microsoft (2023)
* United States v. Google LLC (2024)
* United States v. Google LLC (2025)

Ongoing
litigation ‡|

* FTC v. Meta (2020)
* FTC v. Amazon (2023)
* United States v. Apple Inc. (2024)
* United States v. Live Nation Entertainment (2024)

Related topics|

* Block booking
* Breakup of the Bell System
* Bulk-sale restriction
* Bundling
* Civil investigative demand
* Consent decree
* Consumer welfare standard
* Dividing territories
* Essential facilities doctrine
* Exclusive dealing
* Hub-and-spoke conspiracy
* Kingsbury Commitment
* Merger guidelines
* Modification of Final Judgment
* New Brandeis movement
* Noerr–Pennington doctrine
* Osteopathic Physicians & Surgeons v. California Medical Ass'n (1964)
* Parker immunity doctrine
* Patent misuse
* Post-sale restraint
* Raising rivals' costs
* Relevant market
* Report on Chain Broadcasting
* Reverse payment patent settlement
* Rule of reason
* Second request
* Successors of Standard Oil
* Unfairness doctrine
* Unilateral policy

‡ date of filing

This article related to a case of the Supreme Court of the United States of the Burger Court is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

|

* v
* t
* e

*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template