Reminga v. United States

How later courts describe this case

• in a case decided prior to Copper-weld, finding that transactions between parents and subsidiaries are not immune to Robinson-Patman Act claims
• lobbyist’s intentional failure to make disclosure in violation of statutory duty is contrary to public policy, fails to measure up to right dealing and thus constitutes fraudulent scheme
• egregious misuse of legal proceedings must rise to level of a constitutional violation
• “In the absence of a horizontal conspiracy to charge different prices or a vertical agreement to exclude competitors, price discrimination does not support a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act”
• discussing the elements required to prove a Section 1985 claim
• vagueness standard for non-criminal statutes