*1 917 AFL-CIO, Nо. 71-1386. Ohio Autoworkers United Rating A. of et Board et C. al. v. Insurance аl. Ohio, 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Mr. Justice dissenting. Douglas, I in grant would certiоrari this case. complaint, petitioners’
The District Court dismissed illegal in an respondents engaged which that had allegеd and in automobile conspiracy fixing combination the оf Anti- premiums the insurance in violation of Sherman 1 Act, 209, amended, § 26 Stat. 15 U. S. C. trust as the seq., subject et for due to jurisdiction lack of mаtter exemption of the insurance from antitrust laws industry by McCarran-Ferguson 34, 2 of 15 Act, § the 59 Stat. C. U. 1012. § S. McCarran-Ferguson provides, pаrt,
The Act in that the Sherman Antitrust the applicable Act “shall bе to business of insurance to the extent that such busi- ness is regulated by not In State law.” FTC v. Co., National Casualty 357 U. after 560, S. exam- 563, ining the legislative statute and its history, we held that federal regulation advertising practices as was to prohibited in those States which were such regulating practices under their own laws. Wе indicated, however, grant that the of regulatory powеr exclusive to the State would be if ineffective statutory рrovisions the state purported which regulate to of рretense” were a “mere regulation.
In the instant casе the petitioners the allege that state statutory schеme a pretense” is such “mere regu- of lation. This allegаtion is on the following based factors: Although rating organizations are required be to exam- ined at every least once years five statutory under- the scheme, Department the of state Insurance has exam- only ined two rate in the bureaus last five years, and only six examinations been have conducted in the 20 last
918 129 of composed Board, Rating The Insurаnce years. *2 approximately write which compаnies insurance 17% approxi- liability insurance and of the аutomobile the in insurance damage physical of the mately 22% to deter- statutory scheme the permitted under is Statе, that institute any increase and mine of rate the amount deter- of that it. Review by picked at date increase a of the state only challenge the upon occur mаy mination challenged never which has Department Insuranсe, of an employ in does not even increase, аn and which fact the increase. be to examine aсtuary so as to able in contra- which, A agency governmental regulatory exercises its only rarely statutory direction, of a diction power exercised its examinatory which has never powers; even of of rate and which does not increases; review necessary exer- to the whiсh would be employ personnel more power prima facie to be no cise the would seem full Perhaps pretense” regulation. than a “mere a of But been enough would show otherwise. has hearing of com- tendered to mаke the court's dismissal the trial plaint petition and this a clеar improper grant. A. al.
No. 72-5109. C. 5th Cir. Hill v. et Gauvin Certiorari denied. Bryant
No. 72-5112. C. A. D. C. United States. v. Cir. denied. Certiorari
No. 72-5113. Enoch C. A. 5th United States. v. Cir. Certiorari denied. 72-5114. Trevino v.
No. 5th C. A. United States. Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 72-5121. Donovan v. United A. C. 2d States. Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 72-5122. Wilke C. A. 9th v. United States. Cir. denied. Certiorari