State v. Allied Chemical & Dye Corp.
| Citation | 101 N.W.2d 133,9 Wis.2d 290 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Appellant, v. ALLIED CHEMICAL & DYE CORPORATION et al., Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 02 February 1960 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
John W. Reynolds, Atty. Gen., George F. Sieker, Robert J. Vergeront, and Albert O. Harriman, Asst. Attys. Gen., William J. McCauley, Dist. Atty., C. Stanley Perry, Corp. Counsel, Jack R. Devitt, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Milwaukee, for appellant.
Fairchild, Foley & Sammond, David E. Beckwith, Steven E. Keane, Michael, Spohn, Best & Friedrich, Kenneth K. Luce, Wood, Brady, Tyrrell & Bruce, T. L. Tolan, Jr., Milwaukee, for respondents.
Each side cites and relies upon several cases decided by both federal and state courts. The state relies in particular upon certain language in Leader Theatre Corp. v. Randforce Amusement Corp., 186 Misc. 280, 58 N.Y.S.2d 304 and Commonwealth v. McHugh, 326 Mass. 249, 93 N.E.2d 751. It further relies heavily on certain decisions of the United States supreme court in the Standard Oil Cases.
The defendants rely heavily upon the case of Paramount Publix Corp. v. Hill, D.C., 11 F.Supp. 478, particularly in view of the comment thereon in the case of Ritholz v. Ammon, 240 Wis. 578, 4 N.W.2d 173. The Paramount Publix case was a decision of the district court of the United States for the western district of Wisconsin. The defendants further rely upon language in decisions of the United States supreme court in the employment relations field where the supreme court found language in the acts of congress that preclude the states from acting in the same field.
None of the cases cited are comparable to the facts here, and a review of the many cases would be of little value. Our determination is being made from a reading of the various legislative enactments, both state and federal, dealing with conspiracies and monopolies. From such reading and examination we conclude:
1. There is no language in the federal enactments that pre-empts the field of regulation and enforcement in the federal government or that precludes the states from enacting effective legislation dealing with such unlawful practices.
2. There is no conflict between the federal and state statutes.
3. The Wisconsin statutes make no attempt to regulate or burden interstate commerce.
4. The federal trade commission was not established to enforce the federal antimonopoly statutes. It has been given broad powers to regulate certain trade practices, many of them similar to those delegated by Wisconsin to its state department of agriculture.
5. The Wisconsin statutes were enacted in the exercise of the police powers of the state. The public interest and welfare of the people of Wisconsin are substantially affected if prices of a product are fixed or supplies thereof are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. E. Spriggs Co. v. Adolph Coors Co.
...law even if interstate commerce is involved.'); People's Saving Bank v. Stoddard, 359 Mich. 297, 102 N.W.2d 777; State v. Allied Chem. & Dye Corp., 9 Wis.2d 290, 101 N.W.2d 133; Washington v. Sterling Theaters, 64 Wash.2d 761, 394 P.2d 226; Commonwealth v. McHugh, 326 Mass. 249, 93 N.E.2d 7......
-
Partee v. San Diego Chargers Football Co.
...or insubstantial a nexus with intrastate commerce so as to preclude state antitrust jurisdiction. (See State v. Allied Chemical & Dye Corporation (1960) 9 Wis.2d 290, 101 N.W.2d 133.) 11 I am not persuaded that this case involves exclusively interstate commerce and that this state has no le......
-
Heath Consultants, Inc. v. Precision Instruments, Inc.
...S.Ct. 1094, 10 L.Ed.2d 131 (1963); Peoples Savings Bank v. Stoddard, 359 Mich. 297, 102 N.W.2d 777 (1960); State v. Allied Chemical & Dye Corp., 9 Wis.2d 290, 101 N.W.2d 133 (1960); Commonwealth v. McHugh, 326 Mass. 249, 93 N.E.2d 751 (1950); C. Bennett Bldg. Supplies v. Jenn Air, 759 S.W.2......
-
Emergency One, Inc. v. Waterous Co., Inc.
...of Chapter 133 to facts clearly involving interstate commerce, however, the line is not so clearly drawn. In State v. Allied Chem. & Dye Corp., 9 Wis.2d 290, 101 N.W.2d 133 (1960), the Wisconsin attorney general brought price-fixing charges against several domestic and foreign corporations ......