Vanderbilt Law Review

Article Title

Recent Cases

First Page



Antitrust Law--Clayton Act--Statistics of Market Concentration and Increased Market Share are Insufficient to Show Violation of Section 7 When Other Factors Mandate a Conclusion that Competition will not be Substantially Lessened by the Contested Acquisition --

Preservation of a large number of marginal competitors does not necessarily result in the optimum level of competition, and size per se is not illegal' and should not be equated with anticompetitive effect. Seemingly, the competitive objectives of antimerger law have been infused with a theory characterized by socio-political feelings of hostility towards large, integrated corporations contrasted with friendliness toward small, independent business units . The Court has in the recent past attempted to preserve these social and political values by applying the simplest available criteria in antimerger cases-statistics demonstrating a decreasing number of competitors and an increasing market share in the hands of a few. In the instant opinion, however, the Court has returned its emphasis to a method of analysis characterized by an examination of the relevant economic factors and a consideration of statistical data of market structure, a seemingly desirable result since it represents a realization that only through a wide-ranging economic inquiry can the Court realistically assess and regulate economic and market behavior for the benefit of the public.


Criminal Procedure--Federal Habeas Corpus -- A Writ of Habeas Corpus May Be Issued in Advance of Trial to Prevent Double Jeopardy When a Juvenile Has Been Previously Adjudicated a Delinquent

Petitioner was adjudicated a delinquent and committed to a juvenile institution by a state juvenile court after his arrest on a charge of rape and subsequently was indicted by a grand jury for the same offense. The state criminal court dismissed the indictment on the ground that it subjected petitioner to double jeopardy, but the appellate level reversed, holding that the juvenile court judge should have waived jurisdiction and certified the case to criminal court pursuant to state statutes. The State Supreme Court affirmed the appellate decision and ordered the indictment reinstated. Alleging that his prosecution under the indictment would violate the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment and transgress fundamental fairness concepts of the fourteenth amendment, petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus to terminate his physical custody, which had been prolonged because of the indictment. Rejecting the State's arguments that petitioner had not exhausted state remedies and that jeopardy did not attach in juvenile adjudications, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida declared further prosecution unconstitutional and granted a writ of habeas corpus compelling petitioner's release., On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, held, affirmed.