Works matching Antitrust law and the Supreme Court
1
- Antitrust Bulletin, 2009, v. 54, n. 1, p. 157, doi. 10.1177/0003603X0905400105
- Article
2
- American University Law Review, 2018, v. 68, n. 2, p. 621
- Article
3
- American Business Law Journal, 1972, v. 9, n. 3, p. 241, doi. 10.1111/j.1744-1714.1971.tb01567.x
- Article
4
- Creighton Law Review, 2004, v. 38, n. 1, p. 155
- Article
5
- Washburn Law Journal, 2014, v. 53, n. 2, p. 365
- Article
6
- Minnesota Law Review, 2021, v. 105, n. 5, p. 2095
- Article
7
- Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 2011, v. 44, n. 3, p. 1163
- Article
8
- University of Chicago Law Review, 2017, v. 84, n. 4, p. 2059
- Article
9
- Boston College Law Review, 2023, v. 64, n. 7, p. 1616
- Article
10
- Urban Lawyer, 2011, v. 43, n. 3, p. 659
- Article
11
- California Law Review, 1983, v. 71, n. 5, p. 1557, doi. 10.2307/3480151
- Article
12
- California Law Review, 1981, v. 69, n. 2, p. 497, doi. 10.2307/3480127
- Article
13
- California Law Review, 1969, v. 57, n. 2, p. 518
- Article
14
- Columbia Law Review, 2021, v. 121, n. 6, p. 160
- Article
15
- Columbia Law Review, 2013, v. 113, n. 1, p. 97
- Article
16
- Southwestern Law Review, 2016, v. 45, n. 3, p. 631
- Article
17
- Arbitration Journal, 1987, v. 42, n. 4, p. 3
- Article
18
- Arbitration Journal, 1970, v. 25, n. 3, p. 216
- Article
19
- Emory Law Journal, 2012, v. 61, n. 4, p. 903
- Article
20
- Temple Law Review, 2019, v. 91, n. 3, p. 447
- Article
21
- New Mexico Law Review, 2013, v. 43, n. 2, p. 553
- Article
22
- American Bar Association Journal, 1979, v. 65, n. 4, p. 544
- Article
23
- American Bar Association Journal, 1978, v. 64, n. 8, p. 1222
- Article
24
- American Bar Association Journal, 1978, v. 64, n. 7, p. 1073
- Article
25
- American Bar Association Journal, 1978, v. 64, n. 2, p. 185
- Article
26
- American Bar Association Journal, 1978, v. 64, n. 1, p. 23
- Article
27
- American Bar Association Journal, 1977, v. 63, n. 12, p. 1697
- Article
28
- American Bar Association Journal, 1977, v. 63, n. 8, p. 1045
- Article
29
- American Bar Association Journal, 1976, v. 62, n. 12, p. 1619
- Article
30
- American Bar Association Journal, 1976, v. 62, n. 11, p. 1422
- Article
32
- Southern California Law Review, 2012, v. 85, n. 3, p. 429
- ORBACH, BARAK;
- SOKOL, D. DANIEL
- Article
33
- Michigan Law Review, 2015, v. 114, n. 2, p. 309
- Article
34
- Michigan Law Review, 2011, v. 110, n. 3, p. 489
- Article
35
- Law & Contemporary Problems, 1987, v. 50, n. 4, p. 217, doi. 10.2307/1191461
- Article
36
- Law & Contemporary Problems, 1987, v. 50, n. 4, p. 181, doi. 10.2307/1191460
- Article
37
- Law & Contemporary Problems, 1973, v. 38, n. 1, p. 85
- Article
38
- Antitrust Bulletin, 2006, v. 51, n. 2, p. 281
- Article
40
- IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law Review, 2019, v. 59, n. 1, p. 41
- Article
41
- Duke Law & Technology Review, 2015, v. 14, n. 1, p. 1
- Article
42
- Jurisprudence / Jurisprudencija, 2009, v. 2, n. 116, p. 151
- Article
43
- Marquette Sports Law Review, 2022, v. 32, n. 2, p. 471
- Article
44
- Marquette Sports Law Review, 2019, v. 30, n. 1, p. 169
- Article
45
- Marquette Sports Law Review, 2012, v. 22, n. 2, p. 695
- Article
46
- Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1963, v. 77, n. 4, p. 537, doi. 10.2307/1879449
- Article
47
- Journal of Insurance Regulation, 2004, v. 23, n. 2, p. 109
- Article
48
- Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2010, v. 33, n. 1, p. 6
- Article
49
- Dispute Resolution Journal, 2023, v. 77, n. 1, p. 1
- Laute, A. Alexander;
- Frisch, Imke
- Article
50
- Tulane Journal of International & Comparative Law, 2011, v. 20, n. 1, p. 1
- Article