15 U.S.C. § 1801
Congressional declaration of policy
In the public interest of maintaining a newspaper press editorially and reportorially independent and competitive in all parts of the United States, it is hereby declared to be the public policy of the United States to preserve the publication of newspapers in any city, community, or metropolitan area where a joint operating arrangement has been heretofore entered into because of economic distress or is hereafter effected in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: Hearst Commc'ns v. Seattle Times Co., 115 P.3d 262 (Wash. 2005).
Hearst Commc'ns v. Seattle Times Co., 115 P.3d 262 (Wash. 2005). “See CP at 83-84; 15 U.S.C. § 1801 . Other evidence was submitted to demonstrate the circumstances surrounding the formation of the contract, including letters from executives at the Times to Hearst indicating the Times' reasons for including the loss operations clause.”
Hearst Commc'ns, Inc. v. Seattle Times Co., 154 Wash. 2d 493 (Wash. 2005). “See CP at 83-84; 15 U.S.C. § 1801 . Other *500 evidence was submitted to demonstrate the circumstances surrounding the formation of the contract, including letters from executives at the Times to Hearst indicating the Times’ reasons for including the loss operations clause.”
Nat'l Soc'y of Prof'l Engineers v. United States, 435 U.S. 679 (1978). “[15] "Without going into detail and but very briefly surveying the whole field, it may be with accuracy said that the dread of enhancement of prices and of other wrongs which it was thought would flow from the undue limitation on competitive conditions caused by contracts or…”
Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 412 U.S. 94 (1973). “An antitrust immunity is established by the Newspaper Preservation Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1801 et seq. [1] H. R. 18927, 91st Cong.”
Arizona v. Maricopa Cnty. Med. Soc'y, 457 U.S. 332 (1982). “§ 5b (Reed-Bulwinkle Act, rail and motor carrier rate-fixing bureaus); 15 U. S. C. § 1801 (newspaper joint operating agreements).”
Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69 (2021). “§§1011–1013 (insurance); 15 U. S. C. §§1801–1804 (news- paper joint operating agreements).”
Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974). “466 , 15 U. S. C. § 1801 et seq. [17] "Freedom of the press is a right belonging, like all rights in a democracy, to all the people.”
Michigan Citizens for an Indep. Press v. Richard Thornburgh, United States Attorney Gen., 868 F.2d 1285 (D.C. Cir. 1989). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1801 . The Act creates an exemption to the antitrust laws that permits a joint newspaper operating arrangement (“JOA”) 3 between two newspapers if the Attorney General determines that one of the papers is “a failing newspaper” and that the arrangement will…”
Comm. for an Indep. P-I v. Smith, 549 F. Supp. 985 (W.D. Wash. 1982). “On March 27, 1981 the Times and the Hearst Corporation (“Hearst”), as publisher of the P-I, filed an application with the Attorney General of the United States, William French Smith, for approval of a joint operating arrangement (“JOA”), pursuant to the Newspaper Preservation…”
S. Pac. Commc'ns Co. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 556 F. Supp. 825 (D.D.C. 1983). “, 15 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. 181 . The decisions in Almeda Mall, American Football and SCM reflect the long-standing principle that a monopolist “is not bound to so use its property that others .”
Newspaper Printing Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 692 F.2d 615 (6th Cir. 1982). “The economic plight of the newspapers prompted Congress to enact the Newspaper Preservation Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq., which allows two or more newspapers to share certain operations without running afoul of antitrust laws.”
Hearst Commc'ns, Inc. v. Seattle Times Co., 120 Wash. App. 784 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “15 U.S.C. § 1801 (1970); see also Comm, for an Indep.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.