In their Antitrust Trade and Practice column, Neal R. Stoll and Shepard Goldfein, partners at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, write: In the face of increasingly lax judicial application of the "clearly articulated" 'Midcal' prong, the Supreme Court attempts to use 'Phoebe Putney' to remind lower courts that state action immunity is generally disfavored, and that the immunized conduct must fall more directly within the scope of conduct contemplated by legislatures.
Impact of 'Phoebe Putney': What's Old Is New Again
New York Law Journal
March 19, 2013
This article requires premium access
This article requires premium access to The New York Law Journal. Please sign in or subscribe to read the full text.