Wisconsin Jury Instruction - 3.3.1 Section 1, Per Se Violation Conspiracy To Fix Prices - Includes Alternative Rule of Reason Instruction

• Category: Federal - Jury Instructions
• State: Multi-State
• Control #: US-11CF-3-3-1
• Format: Word; Rich Text

Description

This form contains sample jury instructions, to be used across the United States. These questions are to be used only as a model, and should be altered to more perfectly fit your own cause of action needs. Wisconsin Jury Instruction — 3.3.1 Section 1, Per Se Violation Conspiracy To Fix Prices — Includes Alternative Rule of Reason Instruction: Wisconsin Jury Instruction — 3.3.1 Section 1 refers to a specific legal guideline provided to juries in Wisconsin for cases involving per se violation conspiracy to fix prices. This instruction deals with situations where there is evidence of an agreement or understanding between two or more individuals or entities to manipulate and control prices in an anti-competitive manner. The purpose of this instruction is to inform the jury about the legal standards and principles they need to consider while assessing the alleged conspiracy to fix prices. In such cases, the court provides the jury with two options: 1. Per Se Violation Instruction: This instruction emphasizes that if the evidence presented during the trial shows a clear and unambiguous agreement or understanding between the defendants to fix prices, the jury should conclude that a per se violation has occurred. Per se violations are considered inherently illegal without the need to assess the specific effects on competition. It implies that the mere existence of an agreement to fix prices is sufficient to establish a violation. 2. Alternative Rule of Reason Instruction: This instruction instructs the jury to consider an alternative approach known as the rule of reason analysis. Under this approach, the jury is required to evaluate the specific facts and circumstances of the case to determine whether the alleged conspiracy had an anti-competitive effect on the market. This instruction suggests that if the evidence presented is ambiguous or does not clearly establish a price-fixing agreement, the jury should apply a rule of reason analysis to assess the potential harm to competition. It is important to note that the availability and application of these instructions may vary depending on the specific case and the discretion of the judge. In summary, Wisconsin Jury Instruction — 3.3.1 Section 1 provides guidance to the jury when deciding cases involving accusations of per se violation conspiracy to fix prices. The instruction includes two possible approaches: a per se violation instruction if a clear agreement is proven, and an alternative rule of reason instruction if the evidence is more ambiguous. It aims to ensure a fair evaluation of the evidence and a just verdict in these complex legal matters.

Wisconsin Jury Instruction — 3.3.1 Section 1, Per Se Violation Conspiracy To Fix Prices — Includes Alternative Rule of Reason Instruction: Wisconsin Jury Instruction — 3.3.1 Section 1 refers to a specific legal guideline provided to juries in Wisconsin for cases involving per se violation conspiracy to fix prices. This instruction deals with situations where there is evidence of an agreement or understanding between two or more individuals or entities to manipulate and control prices in an anti-competitive manner. The purpose of this instruction is to inform the jury about the legal standards and principles they need to consider while assessing the alleged conspiracy to fix prices. In such cases, the court provides the jury with two options: 1. Per Se Violation Instruction: This instruction emphasizes that if the evidence presented during the trial shows a clear and unambiguous agreement or understanding between the defendants to fix prices, the jury should conclude that a per se violation has occurred. Per se violations are considered inherently illegal without the need to assess the specific effects on competition. It implies that the mere existence of an agreement to fix prices is sufficient to establish a violation. 2. Alternative Rule of Reason Instruction: This instruction instructs the jury to consider an alternative approach known as the rule of reason analysis. Under this approach, the jury is required to evaluate the specific facts and circumstances of the case to determine whether the alleged conspiracy had an anti-competitive effect on the market. This instruction suggests that if the evidence presented is ambiguous or does not clearly establish a price-fixing agreement, the jury should apply a rule of reason analysis to assess the potential harm to competition. It is important to note that the availability and application of these instructions may vary depending on the specific case and the discretion of the judge. In summary, Wisconsin Jury Instruction — 3.3.1 Section 1 provides guidance to the jury when deciding cases involving accusations of per se violation conspiracy to fix prices. The instruction includes two possible approaches: a per se violation instruction if a clear agreement is proven, and an alternative rule of reason instruction if the evidence is more ambiguous. It aims to ensure a fair evaluation of the evidence and a just verdict in these complex legal matters.