Editing Sherman Antitrust Act (section)

==Legacy==
{{main|History of United States antitrust law}}
The federal government began filing cases under the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890.  Some cases were successful and others were not; many took several years to decide, including appeals.

Notable cases filed under the act include:<ref>{{cite web|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UcJAAAAAYAAJ|title=Sherman Anti-trust Law and List of Decisions Relating Thereto|first=United|last=States|date=26 March 2018|publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office|via=Google Books}}</ref>
* ''United States v. Workingmen's Amalgamated Council of New Orleans'' (1893), which was the first to hold that the law applied to labor unions.
* ''Chesapeake & Ohio Fuel Co. v. United States'' (1902), in which the trust was dissolved<ref>{{cite web |url=http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=wharton_research_scholars |title=An Early Assessment of the Sherman Antitrust Act: Three Case Studies |access-date=2016-03-08 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150926031609/http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=wharton_research_scholars |archive-date=2015-09-26 }}</ref>
* ''[[Northern Securities Co. v. United States]]'' (1904), which reached the Supreme Court, dissolved the company and set many precedents for interpretation.
* ''[[Hale v. Henkel]]'' (1906) also reached the Supreme Court. Precedent was set for the production of documents by an officer of a company, and the self-incrimination of the officer in his or her testimony to the [[grand jury]]. Hale was an officer of the [[American Tobacco Co.]]
* ''[[Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States]]'' (1911), which broke up the company based on geography, and contributed to the [[Panic of 1910–1911]].
* ''[[United States v. American Tobacco Co.]]'' (1911), which split the company into four.
* ''United States v. General Electric Co'' (1911), where GE was judged to have violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, along with International General Electric, [[Philips]], [[Sylvania Electric Products|Sylvania]], Tungsol, and Consolidated and Chicago Miniature. Corning and Westinghouse made consent decrees.<ref name="US v GE 1911">{{cite web |title=United States v. General Electric Co., 82 F. Supp. 753 (D.N.J. 1949) |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/82/753/1755675/ |website=Justia Law |access-date=15 September 2019 |language=en |date=4 April 1949}}</ref>
* ''[[United States v. Motion Picture Patents Co.]]'' (1915), which ruled that the company was abusing its monopolistic rights, and therefore, violated the Sherman act.
* ''[[Federal Baseball Club v. National League]]'' (1922) in which the Supreme Court ruled that [[Major League Baseball]] was not [[interstate commerce]] and was not subject to the antitrust law.
* ''United States v. National City Lines'' (1953), related to the [[General Motors streetcar conspiracy]].
* ''[[United States v. AT&T (1982)|United States v. AT&T Co.]]'', which was settled in 1982 and resulted in the breakup of the company.
*''[[Wilk v. American Medical Ass'n|Wilk v. American Medical Association]]'' (1990) Judge Getzendanner issued her opinion that the AMA had violated Section 1, but not 2, of the Sherman Act, and that it had engaged in an unlawful conspiracy in [[restraint of trade]] "to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession." 
* ''[[United States v. Microsoft Corp. (2001)|United States v. Microsoft Corp.]]'' was settled in 2001 without the breakup of the company.
* ''[https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca2-10-00846/pdf/USCOURTS-ca2-10-00846-0.pdf Fleischman vs Albany Medical Center]'' (2010), where nurses alleged Albany Medical Center suppressed their wages in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, by sharing wage information with other area hospitals. References: (1) Casetext Fleischman vs Albany Medical Center (2) Justia Docket No. 10-0846-mv
* ''[[United States v. Google LLC (2020)|United States v. Google LLC]]'' (2020, ongoing as of 2024), wherein Judge Amit P. Mehta ruled Google acted illegally to maintain a monopoly in online search.