Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society

457 U.S. 332 (1982)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
A
From our private database of 46,200+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society

United States Supreme Court
457 U.S. 332 (1982)

Play video

Facts

Around 1,750 doctors in Maricopa County, Arizona, joined the Maricopa Foundation for Medical Care, and about 400 joined the Pima Foundation for Medical Care (collectively, the foundations) (defendants). The foundations established schedules of maximum fees that member-doctors could accept as payment from patients covered by foundation-approved insurance plans. The member-doctors had no financial interest in the foundations’ operations, but the foundations were authorized to collect payment from insurance companies to compensate member-doctors for services provided. Patients who had foundation-approved medical insurance and saw member-doctors were guaranteed complete coverage for services. The State of Arizona (plaintiff) sued the foundations, arguing that the fee schedules amounted to price-fixing agreements that were per se violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The foundations countered that the fee schedules were not unlawful price-fixing agreements because they were horizontal agreements, established only maximum prices, and had procompetitive effects. After limited discovery, Arizona moved for summary judgment. The district court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, J.)

Dissent (Powell, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 777,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,200 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Antitrust
Healthcare Law

Key Terms