Gen. of La., 612 F.3d 368, 374-77 (5th Cir.2010) (rejecting challenge to Louisiana statute); Grand River Enters. Six Nations, Ltd. v. Beebe, 574 F.3d 929, 936-39 (8th Cir.2009) (rejecting challenge to Arkansas statute), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2095, 176 L.Ed.2d 723 (2010); KT & G Corp. v. Attorney Gen. of Okla., 535 F.3d 1114, 1128-33 (10th Cir.2008) (rejecting challenge to Kansas and Oklahoma statutes); Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d at 910-11 (9th Cir.2007) (rejecting challenge to California statutes), cert. denied, 553 U.S. 1031, 128 S.Ct. 2427, 171 L.Ed.2d 229 (2008); Tritent Int’l Corp. v. Kentucky, 467 F.3d 547, 554-58 (6th Cir.2006) (rejecting challenge to Kentucky statutes). But cf. AD. Bedell Wholesale Co. v. Philip Morris Inc., 263 F.3d 239, 247-54 (3d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1081, 122 S.Ct. 813,
holding that per se statutory rule is not permissible under fourth amendment holding that a maximum vertical price maintenance scheme is not per se illegal holding msa per se illegal output restriction but defendants immune under noerrpennington doctrine holding that to be preempted as a per se illegal hybrid restraint a regulation must involve a delegation of market power to private parties that is per se illegal because otherwise the hybrid restraint could not be attacked as facially invalid holding such agreements to be per se illegal